“N.J. man asks state Supreme Court to strike down law against cursing in front of children”: NJ.com has this report.

“Obamacare and gay marriage — the missing link”: Dale Carpenter has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Ask the author: Garrett Epps on clashing visions on the Court.” Ronald Collins has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Lets Gay Marriages Proceed in Kansas”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court allows same-sex marriages to proceed in Kansas, lifting stay.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in Kansas.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Clears Gay Marriage to Start in Kansas.”

The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court lifts hold on gay marriage in Kansas.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court lifts stay preventing same-sex marriage in Kansas; Clerks can issue licenses immediately.”

Brad Cooper of The Kansas City Star has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court clears same-sex marriage in Kansas.”

Bryan Lowry of The Wichita Eagle has a news update headlined “Supreme Court lifts hold on same-sex marriage in Kansas.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Same-sex marriages may go ahead in Kansas.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“History gives clues to Chief Justice Roberts’ thinking on new Obamacare case”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen, author of the “Election Law Blog,” will have this op-ed in Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

And today at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a lengthy post titled “The test to textualism in King v. Burwell: A Reply to Abbe Gluck.”

“Google gets new hearing in ‘Innocence of Muslims’ copyright case”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “Appeals court will revisit order to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Google Gets Chance to Block Bit-Player Internet Removal.”

David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “Takedown of anti-Muslim YouTube video gets appeals court rehearing; Decision allows subjects of news coverage to veto ‘unflattering broadcasts.’”

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Ashby Jones has a post titled “Appeals Court to Take Another Look at ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Copyright Ruling.”

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Controversial ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Ruling to Be Reconsidered by Appellate Court; The case figures to re-explore the standards of joint authorship in Hollywood.”

National Journal reports that “Court Agrees to Reconsider Decision Over Benghazi-Linked Anti-Islam Video; A copyright claim on the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ will be reviewed by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Variety reports that “Appellate Court Will Rehear ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Case.”

And at Techdirt, Mike Masnick has a post titled “Appeals Court Finally Agrees To Rehear Horrible Ruling Over Actress’ Supposed Copyright In ‘Innocence Of Muslims.’”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

As I noted in this earlier post, Google and YouTube filed their petition for rehearing en banc on March 12, 2014. And, as I noted in this earlier post, on July 11, 2014, the original three-judge panel issued an amended opinion.

If the panel majority had hoped to avoid en banc rehearing by issuing an amended ruling, that hope was formally dashed today. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote the majority opinion for the panel, will conclude his statutorily prescribed seven-year term as the Ninth Circuit’s chief judge later this month. Although the chief judge, unless recused, is the one and only Ninth Circuit judge guaranteed to serve on every 11-judge en banc panel, when this case is reheard en banc, Kozinski will no longer be guaranteed a place on the en banc panel because he will then no longer be the chief judge. Thus, unless Kozinski is randomly assigned to the 11-judge panel, the panel’s decision to issue an amended decision could deprive Kozinski of being able to vote in favor of the outcome he believes to be correct in the en banc proceeding.

“Ruling clears way for concealed guns; Sheriff waiting until ruling becomes final before working to clear backlog of applications”: The San Diego Union-Tribune has this news update.

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Panel says state can’t intervene in concealed-weapon appeal.”

Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined “Concealed gun ruling stands: Foes can’t fight loosening of California permit standards.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t revisit concealed weapon permits case.”

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

“D.C. Circuit steps aside on health care dispute”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog” reporting on an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

And in other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Obamacare case pulled from appeals court schedule.”

“Scalia invites criminal defendants to challenge SEC authority”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“President appoints Restrepo to U.S. Court of Appeals”: Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update that begins, “A federal judge who immigrated to the United States as a child and spent years as a public defender and civil rights lawyer in Philadelphia is President Obama’s latest pick to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.”

“Court backs UT in race-admissions case”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “Affirmative action could go back to Supreme Court.”

The Texas Tribune reports that “Appeals Court Denies Request to Rehear Fisher v. UT.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Fisher case on way back to the Court.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the dissent therefrom in which five judges joined, at this link.

“The High Court Takes Center Stage: The biggest year in the Supreme Court’s modern history will shape the 2016 election.” Doug Kendall has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

Greetings from Dallas! Where right now, it’s a balmy 36 degrees outside.

Tomorrow afternoon, following my planned early lunch at the Pecan Lodge, the AJEI summit conference begins.

Programming note: I will be traveling to Dallas this afternoon, where starting tomorrow I will be attending the 2014 Appellate Judges Education Institute summit. Additional posts will appear here tonight.

“Loretta Lynch hearings likely to wait”: Politico.com has a report that begins, “Senate Democrats appear increasingly likely to punt confirmation proceedings for attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch into next year, a move that would appease Republicans who want the fight to wait until they hold the majority.”

“Immigrant lawyer hopes his effort inspires others”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Midwife abortion objection case heard at Supreme Court; The UK’s highest court will hear legal arguments on whether midwives have a right to refuse to take any part in abortion procedures on moral grounds”: BBC News has this report.

“Undo Citizens United? We’d Only Scratch the Surface; The problem runs far deeper, to an absurdly narrow legal definition of ‘corruption’ that throws democracy on the trash heap.” Law professor Jedediah Purdy has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

“Hawaii Supreme Court to hear same sex marriage case”: Hawaii Reporter has this article.

“U.S. Supreme Court hearing today could be pivotal for Maryland tax issue”: The Washington Post has this report.

“Scorecard for Supreme Court hearing: Did Alabama make it too easy for blacks to get elected?” AL.com has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Landmark Voting Law Creates Role Reversal in Court Clash.”

On today’s edition of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had a audio segment titled “Supreme Court Case Seeks Source Of Alabama Gerrymandering.”

And Governing.com reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Limits on Race in Gerrymandering; On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments in two cases challenging Alabama’s legislative maps; Their ruling could have an impact on congressional and legislative maps across the country.”

“At Supreme Court, secretiveness attracts snoops”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.