“Irreparable Harm: The Supreme Court just heard a case that proves how broken the death penalty is.” Law professor Brandon L. Garrett has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“Hurricane Matthew Could Have Devastating Consequences for the Election”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at Slate.

“Mid-MDL ‘Gelboim appeals’ are rare, despite N.Y. judge’s complaint”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.

“Use of death penalty re-examined in the states, at Supreme Court”: Carol Zimmermann of Catholic News Service has this report.

“Six justices turn out for dedication of Antonin Scalia Law School”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Antonin Scalia law school dedicated in Virginia.”

“Museum’s slight of Clarence Thomas does African American history a disservice”: Mark Paoletta has this blog post at The Hill.

“Elected Judges Are Less Likely to Support LGBTQ Rights. Also, Judges Should Never Be Elected.” Mark Joseph Stern has this essay online today at Slate.

“Supreme Court Weighs If Friendly Tips Worth Millions Constitute Insider Trading; How the high court defines the crime could have a big effect on white-collar prosecutions”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Is there a pause in the political battle over state Supreme Court?” Jack Lessenberry has this essay online at Michigan Public Radio.

“Florida Supreme Court judges face merit retention votes Nov. 8”: Lloyd Dunkelberger of the News Service of Florida has this report.

“A New Day in the Fifth Circuit?” Barry Barnett has this post today at his “The Contingency” blog.

“Justices Seem Ready to Find Bias in Trial of Black Man on Texas Death Row”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court hears arguments in two cases raising issues of discrimination, unfair treatment.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court seems ready to reopen racial bias claims in Texas and Illinois.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Bias Claims in Murder Trial; Justices hear arguments over whether expert witness’s racial comments undermined African-American man’s sentencing.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices see racism in inmate’s death sentence.”

Kevin Diaz of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court looks at race in Houston death penalty case.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Justices skeptical of testimony black man more dangerous because of his race.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court May Side With Inmate Who Was Sentenced To Death Because He Is Black; Duane Buck wants to be able to show that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Chris McDaniel and Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News report that “Supreme Court Poised To Side With Death Row Inmate In Case With Racist Testimony; Duane Buck was sentenced to death after his own expert said he was more dangerous because he was black; The justices agreed it was ‘indefensible’ — but debated the larger effects of the case on Wednesday.”

Jolie McCullough of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Seems Receptive to Death Case Appeal.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Reviews Racial Discrimination In Texas Death Penalty Case.”

“New Court Dynamics With A New Term of Oral Arguments”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Supreme Court appears hesitant to curtail insider trading prosecutions”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court seeks to clarify insider trading.”

Aruna Viswanatha of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Radically Altering Insider-Trading Rules; Court heard arguments in case asking whether insider trading occurs if original tipster doesn’t benefit.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Ben Protess and Matthew Goldstein have an article headlined “What Is a ‘Personal Benefit’ From Insider Trading? Justices Hear Arguments.” In addition, today’s newspaper contains an editorial titled “The Supreme Court Revisits Insider Trading.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Renae Merle has an article headlined “Is it insider trading to share corporate information with a relative? Supreme Court hears arguments.”

And in commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “There’s Brotherly Love, and Then There’s Insider Trading.”

“Court sides with Valencia College students in ultrasound dispute; The plaintiffs quit the Orlando state college’s sonography program because instructors had students perform what are known as ‘transvaginal ultrasounds’ on each other”: Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida has this report.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Eleventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.