“‘Of Courtiers And Kings’: An Interview With Todd Peppers About Supreme Court Clerkships.” David Lat has this post today at “Above the Law.”

“State high court hears cases on city oil and gas fracking bans; Supreme Court hears oral arguments in state-local power struggle spurred by domestic oil and gas drilling boom”: Bruce Finley of The Denver Post has this news update.

And Karen Antonacci of The Longmont (Colo.) Times-Call has a news update headlined “Longmont’s high court case: Fracking ban still allows safe production.”

“Group Continues Push To Intervene in Admissions Lawsuit”: One month ago, The Harvard Crimson published an article that begins, “Lawyers representing a pro-affirmative action group of current and prospective Harvard students argued against a court’s rejection of the group’s motion to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit against the College last week.”

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision affirming the denial of the motion to intervene.

“No, Scalia’s comment about ‘less-advanced’ schools wasn’t racist”: Online at The Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough has an essay that begins, “Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court over affirmative action at the University of Texas had barely concluded before the Internet lit up with ‘shock horror’ reactions to something Justice Antonin Scalia said.”

“Missouri Supreme Court weighs lawsuit against pawn shop that sold gun to mentally ill woman”: The Associated Press has this report.

And BBC News has a report headlined “Trying to overturn a US gun law.”

“Kansas Court of Appeals hears arguments on whether Kansas Constitution guarantees the right to abortion”: Justin Wingerter of The Topeka Capital-Journal has this report.

Bryan Lowry of The Wichita Eagle has an article headlined “What’s at stake in the lawsuit against Kansas’ new abortion law?”

Peter Hancock of The Lawrence Journal-World reports that “Abortion case tests limits of Kansas Constitution.”

And The Associated Press reports that “With nation’s 1st ban on abortion method at stake, Kansas court ponders new state protections.”

“Senate schedules vote on long-delayed Pa. nominee Restrepo”: Jonathan Tamari has this post at Philly.com’s “CapitolInq” blog.

“Appeals court asked to declare Arizona abortion law illegal”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this report.

Earlier, Alia Beard Rau of The Arizona Republic previewed the oral argument in an article headlined “Arizona law banning abortion based on race, sex goes before court.”

You can view the video of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on YouTube via this link.

“Judges must stop insulting each other, Supreme Court President warns; While it is ‘fun’ to malign fellow lawmakers in judgements, it undermines confidence in the courts, Lord Neuberger says”: The Telegraph (UK) has this report.

And at the “Legal Cheek” blog, Katie King has a post titled “Supreme Court chief tells judges to be nice to each other in their judgments; Don’t attack colleagues, urges Lord Neuberger.”

According to King’s blog post, “‘Hyperbole and insults can be great fun, particularly when they emanate from Justice Scalia,’ Neuberger says in relation to off-the-wall American Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia, who has been likened to law student favourite Lord Denning.”

You can access the full prepared text of Lord Neuberger‘s recent remarks at this link.

“McAuliffe suggests Republican ‘setup’ in flap over Supreme Court pick”: Graham Moomaw of The Richmond Times-Dispatch has a news update that begins, “Gov. Terry McAuliffe suggested Wednesday that Republicans may have conspired against him in a ‘setup’ over state Supreme Court Justice Jane Marum Roush, the governor’s embattled pick for the high court.”

“Solicitor general to Supreme Court: Don’t take Bob McDonnell’s case.” The Washington Post has this report.

“Race and College Admissions at the Supreme Court”: This editorial will appear in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Scalia channels U.S. top court colleague Thomas in race remarks”: Lawrence Hurley and Joan Biskupic of Reuters have this report.

“Key Justice Suggests Supreme Court Could Punt, Again, On Affirmative Action”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Agreement on Restrepo nomination”: As noted here, the U.S. Senate has agreed to hold a vote on the nomination of U.S. District Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo (E.D. Pa.) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at 5:00 p.m. eastern time on Monday, January 11, 2016.

“Heated Arguments Fly At Supreme Court Over Race In College Admissions”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Argument analysis: Now, three options on college affirmative action.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Sesame Street Meets Groundhog Day: The Supreme Court considers affirmative action at the University of Texas — again.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“History Draws a Line on ‘One Man, One Vote'”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Fisher v. University of Texas II is heard in Supreme Court”: The Daily Texan — the student newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin — has this report.

“Judge Jack Panella assigned to Supreme Court porn email case”: Jim Deegan of The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania has this report.

“SCOTUS could punt, again, on affirmative action”: Josh Gerstein and Kimberly Hefling of Politico.com have this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court closely split on use of affirmative action at universities.”

Adam Edelman of The New York Daily News has an article headlined “During Supreme Court hearing on affirmative action, Justice Scalia claims that ‘most black scientists in the U.S.’ benefit from not being admitted into top programs.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court divided in University of Texas affirmative action case.”

Irin Carmon of msnbc.com has an article headlined “Will the Supreme Court shred affirmative action?”

And Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts Wants To Know Exactly When Affirmative Action Can Die; In contentious hearing, the Supreme Court shows deep divisions on whether race can remain a factor in college admissions.”

“Thurgood Marshall and the Need for Affirmative Action”: Lincoln Caplan has this post today at The New Yorker.

And at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has a post titled “Justice Kennedy Wants Affirmative Action To Die, But He Doesn’t Want To Be The One Who Kills It.”

Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin oral argument transcript now available online: At this link.

“‘Troublemaker’ Kozinski Unafraid to Advocate for Change”: Jessica DaSilva of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“Supreme Court Revisits Case That May Alter Affirmative Action”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has a news update that begins, “A majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed unpersuaded on Wednesday that an affirmative action plan at the University of Texas was constitutional.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court seems divided over University of Texas race-conscious admissions.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court skeptical of racial preferences in university admissions.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Divided Supreme Court Confronts Race-Based College Admissions; Challenge to University of Texas policy questions whether preferences are still needed.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Torn Over Texas Affirmative Action Program.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court divided over affirmative action in college admissions.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “University Affirmative Action Questioned at U.S. High Court.”

“Supreme Court Revisits Case That May Alter Affirmative Action”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report (currently the pre-argument version).

And WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog has a post titled “Supreme Court University Affirmative Action Hearing — Live Blog.”

“Federal judge details armed robbery in 911 call”: The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

“In race case, will Justice Kennedy go from liberal hero to goat? The Supreme Court justice holds the swing vote in a case that could end affirmative action in college admissions.” Kimberly Hefling of Politico.com has this report.

Online at The Atlantic, Richard D. Kahlenberg has an essay titled “The Future of Affirmative Action; How a conservative decision at the Supreme Court could lead to a liberal outcome.”

And online at The Los Angeles Times, Kahlenberg has an essay titled “Texas’ college admissions policies give the well-to-do a leg up.”

“Charlotte attorneys challenge law that allows magistrates to avoid performing same-sex marriages”: The Charlotte Observer has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Lawsuit challenges gay marriage law in North Carolina.”

“Longmont’s fracking ban due before state supreme court; Fort Collins will also present oral argument on its moratorium”: Karen Antonacci of The Longmont (Colo.) Times-Call has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Colorado’s fracking battle goes before state Supreme Court.”

“The justices go fundamental: Who is entitled to representation in America?” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice faces disciplinary hearing over emails”: Reuters has this report.

Charlie Thompson and Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania have an article headlined “5 key points from the judicial conduct charges filed against Pa. Supreme Court Justice Eakin.”

And today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News contains an editorial titled “Supreme Disgrace” that begins, “When you nearly succeed in making retired-in-disgrace Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery look like a boy scout, it’s time to step down.”

“U.S. response to Mohamed Mohamud’s appeal sets up surveillance showdown”: Bryan Denson of The Oregonian has an article that begins, “Government lawyers have boldly defended a controversial surveillance law that allows U.S. agents to track phone calls from suspected foreign terrorists to Americans who communicate with them.”

You can view the 164-page brief for appellee that the federal government filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Diversity Makes You Brighter”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, professors Sheen S. Levine and David Stark have an op-ed that begins, “Affirmative action is back before the Supreme Court today.”