“Yale, Harvard, Yale, Harvard, Yale, Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, Columbia: The thing that scares me most about the Supreme Court.” Dahlia Lithwick has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Ruling that voids Arizona’s ‘no bail’ law stands”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t overturn ruling on Arizona no-bail law.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Arizona ban on bail for immigrants falls.”

You can access at this link today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court denying a stay, and a statement respecting the denial of a stay that Justice Clarence Thomas issued, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined.

“Thomas hints at court split on gay marriage review”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Did two Justices vote to hear same-sex marriage cases?”

“Will the Supreme Court Mandate Gay Marriage?” Richard Socarides has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Naperville man convicted in stash house scheme gets new trial”: The Chicago Tribune has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Naperville man who alleged he was goaded into a scheme to rob a phony drug stash house by overzealous federal agents.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Getting Too Close to Court Tarnishes Top Advocate”: Scott Graham of The Recorder had this article last week. You can freely access the full text of the order via Google.

This blog’s related earlier coverage can be accessed here.

Seventh Circuit panel holds that Freedom from Religion Foundation lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the parsonage exemption contained in the Internal Revenue Code: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“2014 National Lawyers Convention Opening with Justice Scalia”: The Federalist Society has posted on YouTube at this link the video of Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks this morning.

“Iowa’s Grassley is first non-lawyer to head Senate Judiciary Committee”: Timothy M. Phelps has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Why the 6th Circuit was wrong on marriage equality”: Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Orange County Register.

And at National Review Online, Hadley Arkes has an essay titled “Judge Sutton Buys Time; In the aftermath of the DeBoer decision, Congress must take the next steps,” while at the “Bench Memos” blog, Matthew J. Franck has a post titled “Judge Daughtrey’s Tantrum.”

“A Tinderbox of a Case”: Victoria Kwan has this post online at The Brooklyn Quarterly.

Kwan is also one of two people behind the “SCOTUS Map” Twitter feed, which is a must-follow for those who wish to keep up with the busy public appearance schedules of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

And because I’m in Dallas through the end of this weekend attending the AJEI Summit (at which Justice Antonin Scalia will be speaking), let me remind readers that frequently while I’m on the road appellate-related news will appear first on this blog’s Twitter feed before I get the chance to post it here.

“Blindfolds Off: Judges on How They Decide (In an Era of Discontent).” Yesterday, the National Constitution Center posted on YouTube the video of this recent panel discussion (via “Constitution Daily“).

“Judge in abortion case sat on Planned Parenthood board”: Today’s edition of The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an article that begins, “The federal judge assigned to handle Planned Parenthood’s challenge to an Ohio law threatening the closure of Cincinnati’s last abortion clinic served on the board of the family planning organization.”

“Constitution Check: Does the new Obamacare challenge have anything to do with the Constitution?” Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

And online at The New Republic, Yishai Schwartz has an essay titled “The Real Villains of the Obamacare Cases Aren’t the Judges — They’re the Lawyers.”

Access online the November 2014 issue of the Harvard Law Review: The issue focuses on last Term’s decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, and you can access the contents via this link.

The issue also includes “Essays in Honor of Justice Stephen G. Breyer,” commemorating his 20 years of service on the Court.

“Obamacare, back on trial: ‘Bumpy ride’ ahead if Supreme Court upends tax subsidies, professor says.” The Harvard Gazette has this report, featuring an interview with law professor Einer Elhauge.

“University of Texas Race Plan Appears Headed Back to U.S. Supreme Court”: Mark Walsh has this post today at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“Supreme Court hears arguments in Md. tax case”: The Baltimore Sun has this report.

The Washington Post has an article headlined “Md. to high court: State has a right to tax all out-of-state income to support local services.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall has an article headlined “Supreme Court Hears Arguments on States’ Income-Tax Rights; Debate Centers on Whether a State Can Tax Earnings Already Taxed by Another State.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court justices protest states’ double taxation.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court weighs state tax authority.”

Governing.com reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Questions Out-of-State Income Taxes; The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could cause localities across the country to lose millions in annual tax revenue.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s Chance to Cut Taxes.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, No. 13-485.

“Justices Hear Challenge to Alabama Redistricting”: 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 “Alabama minority redistricting case seems to divide Supreme Court.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court skeptical over racial gerrymandering claim from Alabama.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Considers Voting-Rights Case; At Issue Is Whether Creation of Predominantly Black Districts Limits Ability of White Democrats to Compete.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court weighs role of race in Alabama voter redistricting case.”

The Guardian (UK) reports that “Alabama Republicans get sympathetic hearing in gerrymandering case.”

Mary Troyan of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “Justices challenge Ala. Democrats in redistricting case.”

AL.com reports that “Plaintiffs in race-based challenge of Alabama’s redistricting face tough questions from justices.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court weighs role of race in Alabama redistricting.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Voting Clash Puts High Court Justices in Reversed Roles.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices weigh racially charged Alabama redistricting plan.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “At The Supreme Court, Tracing A Fine Line Between Politics And Race.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour contained a segment titled “Supreme Court considers line between racial and partisan gerrymandering.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Richard Hasen has a post titled “Argument analysis: Hitting the ‘sweet spot’ on race, party, and redistricting?”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895.

“Law in the Raw”: Online at The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has an essay that begins, “Nearly a week has gone by since the Supreme Court’s unexpected decision to enlist in the latest effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act, and the shock remains unabated.”