“Unanimity and Disagreement on the Supreme Court”: Law professor Cass R. Sunstein posted this article online at SSRN yesterday.

“Navy nurse refuses to force-feed Guantanamo captive; Detainee’s lawyer says her client described the Navy medical officer’s refusal as an act of conscientious objection”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Roberts Court Still Friendly to Business”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog “Jost On Justice.”

“Kozinski amends opinion in 9th Circuit ‘Innocence’ case v. Google”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Book Review: ‘Six Amendments’ by John Paul Stevens; Justice Stevens argues that we need six new amendments; Among them: ending the death penalty and taking away the right to bear arms.” Law professor Steven G. Calabresi has this book review in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

You can freely access the full text of the book review via Google.

“Our work would be much quicker, easier and happier if Judge Wilson, Judge Tjoflat and I all agreed on how the law applies to this case — and every other case, for that matter.” A concurring opinion that Eleventh Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin issued today in a death penalty case contains the following passage:

I write separately because I feel I must respond to the dissenting opinion, and specifically Judge Tjoflat’s repeated statements that Judge Wilson and I “invent[ed] some facts,” “embellish[ed] the record,” exhibited a “lackadaisical relationship with the evidence,” and “disregard[ed] AEDPA” in deciding this case. [citations omitted] Judge Tjoflat is a nationally known and admired judge who has served as a member of the federal judiciary since 1970, and as a judge for the State of Florida before that. He is not only admired nationally, he is also admired by Judge Wilson and me. Our work would be much quicker, easier and happier if Judge Wilson, Judge Tjoflat and I all agreed on how the law applies to this case — and every other case, for that matter. But if we do our jobs properly, it is inevitable that we will have disagreements. And we disagree here. That being the case, it is incumbent upon each of us, as a part of this difficult process, to lay out how we understand the law to apply to the specifics of Mr. DeBruce’s case. Each of us has honestly assessed this case to the best of our ability, and the opposing views expressed in our respective opinions were reached through a sincere effort to properly perform the role required of us as judges of this Court.

My “20 questions for the appellate judge” interview with Eleventh Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat, from August 2003, can be accessed here. Judge Tjoflat became a U.S. Circuit Judge in November 1975 and remains in active service.

“Atheist gives ‘historic’ invocation in Greece”: The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle has this news update.

“American Bar Association urges against file sharing lawsuits; Lawyers’ group says suing consumers may cause ‘a public relations problem'”: David Kravets of Ars Technica has this report.

“Appeals court upholds UT admissions policy”: The Houston Chronicle has this news update.

The Texas Tribune has a report headlined “Appeals Court: UT-Austin May Use Race in Admissions.”

The Daily Texan has a news update headlined “Appeals court rules in favor of UT’s admissions policy in Fisher case.”

The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “University of Texas can use race as factor in admissions, court rules.”

Nathan Koppel of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Court Upholds University of Texas Admissions Program; Race Is Used as a Factor in Admissions to Promote Campus Diversity.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: Texas can use race in admissions.”

Andrew Harris and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “University of Texas Race-Aware Admissions Upheld by Court.”

Jonathan Stempel and Jon Herskovitz of Reuters report that “Court upholds University of Texas affirmative action plan.”

Allie Grasgreen of Politico.com reports that “Appeals court upholds affirmative action in Fisher v. Texas.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Fisher challenge on race rejected again.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Appeals Court Again Upholds Race in Admissions at University of Texas-Austin.”

And at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Fisher Vs. Texas Dismissed Again; Is It Headed Back To Supreme Court?”

My earlier coverage of today’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears in the post immediately below.

“UT may use race in admission, appeals court rules”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has a news update that begins, “The University of Texas may continue considering race for undergraduate admissions, a divided federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Unidentified marshal cleared as FBI closes investigation of fatal courtroom shooting”: This article appears today in The Deseret News.

Today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “Marshal cleared in fatal courthouse shooting.”

And The Associated Press reports that “No charges for marshal in Utah courtroom shooting.”

“Appeals Court Faults Government Order Prohibiting Ralls Corp. Wind Farm Deal; CFIUS Had Barred Transaction on National Security Grounds”: William Mauldin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal have this news update. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Bloomberg News reports that “Chinese-Owned Firm Can Question U.S. on Project Denial.”

And Reuters reports that “U.S. court sides with Chinese firm in dispute with Obama.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Dish Anywhere streaming stays alive, despite Fox’s win over Aereo; Appellate court denies Fox’s request to impose a preliminary injunction”: Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report.

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Fox Loses Latest Bid to Halt Dish’s Place-Shifting Technology; The 9th Circuit affirms a district judge’s conclusion that Fox hasn’t demonstrated irreparable harm.”

Variety reports that “Appeals Court Hands Dish Another Victory in Fox Fight.”

At Gigaom, Jeff John Roberts has a post titled “Dish can keep streaming TV anywhere after Fox’s Aereo argument fails.”

And Gizmodo reports that “The Supreme Court’s Aereo Decision Won’t Screw Up Dish (Yet).”

You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Noel Canning: A Triumph of Judicial Restraint Over Originalism.” Richard Samp has this post at “The Legal Pulse” blog of the Washington Legal Foundation.

“Decades to justice for Florida man on death row for 1985 murder”: Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court Ruling on Public Invocations Gives Atheists a Prayer; Nonbelievers’ Public Invocations Praised; Next Up, Pastafarians”: Joe Palazzolo has this front page article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“A Federal Appeals Court Sidesteps How to Prosecute Detainees”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Court tosses two convictions against former Bin Laden aide.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Appeals court vacates two convictions of bin Laden aide.”

And Reuters reports that “U.S. court partly overturns Guantanamo conviction of al Qaeda publicist.”

Meanwhile, in related coverage, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that “David Hicks a step closer to clearing his name.”

And The Guardian (UK) reports that “David Hicks a step closer to having war criminal conviction quashed; US court finds Australian who spent six years at Guantanamo Bay pleaded guilty to an offence that is not a war crime.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc D.C. Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Iowa Supreme Court Says PLIVA May Be Liable For Not Updating Generic Drug Label”: Mealey’s PI/Product Liability has this report (subscription required for full access).

And Law360.com reports that “Iowa High Court Spares Wyeth From Generics Injury Claims” (subscription required for full access).

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Iowa at this link.