“A Supreme Failure: It’s time for the Supreme Court to do a better job at upholding the Constitution.” Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this essay online today at Politico Magazine.

“Colorado Supreme Court to hear case of man fired over medical marijuana”: Colorado Public Radio today has a report that begins, “Tomorrow, Colorado’s Supreme Court will consider whether employers should be able to fire workers for using medical marijuana.”

“Circuit Upholds Rejection of EEOC’s Gender Pay Lawsuit”: Mark Hamblett of the New York Law Journal has an article that begins, “The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has lost its appeal of a case alleging that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey paid some of its female attorneys far less than their male counterparts.”

You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel. And Rosemary Alito argued the case on behalf of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

“Easton settles Boobies costs for $385,000”: Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this news update.

And Kurt Bresswein of The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Easton Area School District to pay attorneys’ fees in ‘I (heart) Boobies!’ case.”

“For next attorney general, reach across aisle; Like at Defense, an attorney general and a president should come from different parties”: Law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds will have this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of USA Today.

“Some Judicial Opinions Require Only 140 Characters; Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court Lights Up Twitter”: Jesse Wegman will have this Editorial Observer essay in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

You can access Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett‘s Twitter feed at this link.

“Pennsylvania’s top judge wonders whether jurists involved in emailed porn”: Karen Langley of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update that begins, “The chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has asked Attorney General Kathleen Kane to identify any judicial official who participated in an electronic exchange of pornography.”

The Associated Press reports that “Pennsylvania chief jurist warns of impact on cases if judges exchanged pornography with state lawyers.”

And at the “Philly Clout” blog, Chris Brennan of The Philadelphia Daily News has a post titled “Castille: Porn-viewing judges must ‘pay the piper.’”

“Should Federal Judges Have to Turn over Their Medical Records?” Joe Palazzolo has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Law School hosts annual Supreme Court Preview”: The William & Mary Law School has published this news release.

“State Supreme Court to do away with unsigned opinions”: The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette has a news update that begins, “Calling them unnecessary, West Virginia Supreme Court justices will no longer deliver unsigned opinions.”

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Worst Supreme Court Ruling”: Juliet Lapidos has this post today at the “Taking Note” blog of The New York Times.

“Matters of Privacy”: In the Talk of the Town section of the October 6, 2014 issue of The New Yorker, Margaret Talbot has a Comment that begins, “In most of its details, the domestic-violence case of Mark Fuller was not all that unusual.”

“The Supreme Court’s Marriage Choice”: Richard Socarides has this post online today at The New Yorker.

And online at Slate, law professors Susannah W. Pollvogt and Catherine E. Smith have an essay titled “The Smartest Constitutional Argument for Marriage Equality That No One Is Making.”

“Supreme Court Blocks Order to Restore 7 Days of Voting in Ohio”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Republican plan to limit early voting in Ohio.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “A divided Supreme Court delays early voting in Ohio.”

Jim Provance of The Toledo Blade has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court blocks early voting in Ohio.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Ohio’s Voting ‘Golden Week’ Halted by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court votes 5-4 to delay start of early Ohio voting.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Supreme Court lets Ohio limit early voting.”

“Marvel settlement with Kirby leaves freelancers’ rights in doubt”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“New documents show legal basis for NSA surveillance programs”: Reuters has this report.

“Early voting in Ohio blocked”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

The Columbus Dispatch has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court blocks early voting in Ohio.”

The Associated Press reports that “High court puts off start of early voting in Ohio.”

And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Supreme Court, 5-4, Blocks Extension of Early Voting in Ohio: Analysis.”

You can view today’s 5-to-4 order of the U.S. Supreme Court granting a stay at this link.

“Court-ordered anti-smoking ads challenged by firms”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Stakes high for agencies as justices weigh key rulemaking tool”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“How Appealing” readers guess who will be the next Solicitor General of the United States if Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. becomes the next Attorney General: Thanks to all of the readers who took the time to email their best guesses. I have to admit that there aren’t many surprises on this list, which may make it a good starting point for the Obama administration if the need for a new SG were to arise sometime soon.

Reader guesses, in no particular order, are:

Ian Gershengorn (currently the Principal Deputy Solicitor General);

Beth Brinkmann (currently the Deputy Assistant Attorney General);

law professor Pam Karlan (on leave from Stanford, currently the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights);

Deanne Maynard;

David Frederick;

Kathleen Sullivan;

Paul M. Smith;

Edwin Kneedler;

Neal Katyal (perhaps this time actually confirmed by the U.S. Senate); and

Lisa Blatt.

Thanks to those readers who took the time to offer their best guesses. We shall soon see whether this speculation becomes more relevant.

In the October 2014 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Inmate’s right to wear a beard is among cases coming up this SCOTUS term.”

And the new installment of Bryan A. Garner’s “On Words” column is titled “10 tips for better legal writing.”

“Gay marriage supporters, opponents alike eager for Supreme Court ruling”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Dow Loses $1.2 Billion Price-Fixing Appeal”: Barry Barnett has this post at “Blawgletter” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.

Paul D. Clement argued the case on behalf of the victorious appellees, while Carter G. Phillips argued the case for the appellant.

“Securities case dropped; split on legal issue remains”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted at this link.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court, in reversal, dismisses IndyMac securities case.”

“Scalia has a secrecy problem: Hiding and hypocrisy at the Supreme Court; The court plays a growing activist role in our politics and lives — yet all nine justices hide in the shadows.” Law professors Eric Segall and Lisa McElroy have this essay online today at Salon.com.

“Justice Ginsburg’s Twisted Logic”: Online at Bloomberg View, Jonathan Bernstein has an essay that begins, “What happens if conservative Supreme Court justices retire strategically (that is, their departure is timed so that like-minded replacements can be named and confirmed), and liberal justices don’t? The answer is obvious, and depressing for liberals. And yet that appears to be the situation now, and there’s not much anyone can do about it.”

“Will early voting start Tuesday?” The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch has this news update.

“The Halbig Subpoena”: Michael F. Cannon has this post today at Forbes.com.

“Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Likely to Land in Term’s Finale”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Poll: Utahns evenly split as Supreme Court considers gay marriage; It’s 49 percent yes vs. 48 percent no.” Marissa Lang has this front page article in today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune.

“UVA Law Professor Douglas Laycock to Argue for Inmate’s Religious Beliefs in U.S. Supreme Court”: The University of Virginia School of Law issued this news release today.

“US bid for secret Guantanamo force-feeding hearings prompts cover-up fears; The Guardian is among several news organisations planning to file a motion to challenge the administration’s secrecy request”: Spencer Ackerman of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“The Voting Wars Heat Up: Will the Supreme Court allow states to restrict voting for partisan advantage?” Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

When will we hear from the U.S. Supreme Court which cases have been granted review at the opening conference? Last year, the opening conference occurred on Monday, September 30, 2013, and the announcement of new cases granted review issued at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 1, 2013.

This year, the opening conference is occurring today. If last year is any indication, however, we may not learn of which cases the Court decided to grant review in today until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

“Supreme Court meets to consider taking gay marriage cases”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.