“It is unfortunately commonplace that an issue on appeal is waived because it is not adequately developed in a party’s brief. This, however, is a (fortunately rare) case in which no pertinent issue is adequately developed.” So writes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in a ruling issued today.

“Why the Supreme Court should strike down Obamacare subsidies: A president can’t change the interpretation of laws when he doesn’t get his desired result.” Edwin Meese III and J. Kenneth Blackwell have this essay online at USA Today.

“Key Expert in Supreme Court Lethal Injection Case Did His Research on Drugs.com; How the Supreme Court case over lethal injection shows it’s becoming nearly impossible to find experts to defend the practice”: Annie Waldman of ProPublica has this report.

“The 8 most awkward moments in the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage arguments: From ancient Greek sex to ‘plural marriage’ to 12-year-old child brides, things got a little weird on Tuesday.” Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

“State high court quickly ousts Shirley Abrahamson as chief justice”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“A Horrifying Day at Court: Death brings out the worst in the justices.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Texas religious objection bill follows Supreme Court hearing”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The national debate over religious objection laws roiled again Thursday in Texas after Republican lawmakers abruptly pushed a new proposal on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing historic arguments over gay marriage.”

“Santa Monica’s ban on park Nativity displays upheld”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“War court judge denies USS Cole defense lawyers full ‘Torture Report'”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Cleveland’s ‘jock tax’ is unconstitutional, Ohio Supreme Court rules”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this news update, along with a related article headlined “Cleveland now owes tax refunds to other visiting pro athletes, players’ attorney says.”

The Associated Press reports that “Cleveland jock tax on out-of-town athletes unconstitutional.”

And Court News Ohio has reports headlined “Cleveland Method of Taxing Pro Athletes Unconstitutional” and “Cleveland Cannot Tax Injured Colts Player.”

You can access today’s rulings of the Supreme Court of Ohio in these two related cases here and here.

“From Supreme Court, a mixed blessing on campaign finance limits”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this op-ed online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Is John Roberts Drifting Left?” Brianne J. Gorod has this essay online today at The New Republic.

Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of lawsuit seeking to return nativity scene to Palisades Park in Santa Monica each December: You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Texas considers more abortion limits after clinic closures”: The Associated Press has this report.

“GOP divided as Supreme Court ruling on health care law nears”: The Associated Press has this report.

“The Dangers of a Constitutional ‘Right to Dignity’: It may provide support for same-sex marriage, but it also empowers judges to decide whose ‘dignity’ they wish to prioritize.” Jeffrey Rosen has this essay online at The Atlantic.

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: Is it too soon for same-sex marriage?”

And at Justia.com’s Verdict, law professor Marci A. Hamilton has an essay titled “Constitutional Curiosities at the Supreme Court in the Same-Sex Marriage Cases.”

“Justices Split In Aggressive Arguments Over Oklahoma Execution Drug”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

In today’s edition of The Arizona Republic, Michael Kiefer has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court hears arguments on lethal-injection drug.”

Online at Politico Magazine, Raymond Bonner has an article headlined “Capital Punishment Is Bad For Business: To stop executions, death penalty abolitionists have threatened companies’ bottom lines.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo has a front page article headlined “Obama Administration Steps Back From Effort to End Federal Death Penalty.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: What is the Supreme Court’s role under the Eighth Amendment?”

And online at The Marshall Project, Andrew Cohen has a post titled “A Death Penalty Case, or Just Bullying? High Court’s conservatives bridle at ‘guerilla’ tactics of ‘abolitionist’ movement.”

“Ruling: Judicial Candidates Can’t Personally Solicit Campaign Funds.” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Home Stretch at the Supreme Court: Reviewing the Term’s decisions and the blockbusters to come.” At 10 a.m. eastern time today, the Constitutional Accountability Center is presenting this event, which you can view live, online via the foregoing link.

Amy Howe of “SCOTUSblog” is moderating the panel, which will consist of Paul M. Smith, Yaakov Roth, and Elizabeth B. Wydra.

I will be watching with interest, as on Tuesday of next week I will be serving as moderator of a panel titled “Reporting on the Courts” at the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference in New Orleans. The aforementioned Amy Howe, along with David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times and Charles Lane of The Washington Post, will be on that panel.

“The Here and Now of Same-Sex Marriage”: Amy Davidson has this post online at The New Yorker.

And at the “PostEverything” blog of The Washington Post, law professors David Fontana and Donald Braman have an entry titled “John Roberts says people want the ‘democratic process’ to decide gay marriage; He’s wrong; People don’t mind if the court decides our major constitutional issues.”

“High court: States may ban judicial candidates from personal fundraising.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Supreme Court: ‘Judges are not politicians’ when it comes to fundraising.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Upholds Fundraising Restriction on Judicial Elections; Justices say judges aren’t politicians, reject free-speech argument.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court endorses Florida ban on judges seeking campaign cash.”

And The Tampa Tribune reports that “Supreme Court upholds campaign cash limits in Hillsborough case.”

“Supreme Court justices hotly debate the use of a lethal injection drug”: Robert Barnes and Mark Berman have this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Lethal-Injection Case Exposes Deep Top-Court Fissures on Death Penalty; Justices consider whether Oklahoma’s administration of lethal drugs is unconstitutional.”

Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman reports that “U.S. Supreme Court sharply divided in Oklahoma lethal injection case; In arguments Wednesday, liberal justices question whether Oklahoma is using a sedative that allows condemned inmates to feel pain from other drugs; Court conservatives accuse death penalty opponents of waging a guerrilla war.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Lethal injection case exposes U.S. top court’s death penalty divide.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Impatience with death-penalty resistance.”