“Judge: Mt. Soledad cross must come down.” The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update that begins, “A San Diego federal judge ruled Thursday that the cross atop Mount Soledad is unconstitutional, although the chances of the controversial La Jolla monument coming down anytime soon are unlikely.”

The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Judge orders Mt. Soledad cross removed but allows appeals.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge orders removal of San Diego war cross.”

I have posted online at this link the ruling that U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of California issued today.

Judge Burns notes in his decision that he originally ruled that the monument could remain, only to be reversed by the Ninth Circuit. Judge Burns also notes that U.S. Supreme Court review remains a possibility.

“Legal battle over gay marriage moves to the South; Virginia gay, lesbian couples begin same-sex marriage fight that may lead to Supreme Court”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

In jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Law professors Kal Raustiala and Christopher Jon Sprigman have an essay titled “Beauty and the Beasties: The Beastie Boys should lose their GoldieBlox challenge — and they’ll lose even if they win.”

Sam Kleiner has an essay titled “Not Even Lance Deserves This: How the government is using the war on terror to go after him for millions.”

And Imran J. Syed has an essay titled “Doubly Wronged in Detroit: Because the city is broke, Dwayne Provience won’t get compensated for the decade he spent in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.”

“Aereo Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Broadcast TV Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

Variety has a report headlined “Aereo to Broadcasters: Go Ahead, Take the Case to Supreme Court.”

c|net has a report headlined “Aereo to broadcasters: Supreme Court? Bring it on; Aereo will not oppose broadcast networks’ petition for the US Supreme Court to rule on the service’s legal merits, but getting to the Supreme Court is still a long shot.”

The Verge reports that “Aereo wants to fight broadcasters before the Supreme Court.”

And at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Aereo Won’t Oppose Supreme Court Battle; The digital streaming company responds to broadcasters’ attempts to interest the high court in a battle that could reshape the TV industry.”

“Class actions deliver more money to more people than arbitration: CFPB.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“In Rule Fight, Reid Counters Delay With Senate All-Nighter”: Jeremy W. Peters of The New York Times has this report.

The Washington Post reports that “After all-nighter, Senate to continue with confirmation fight through the weekend.”

The Los Angeles Times has a report headlined “Senate all-nighter: Filibuster fallout bogs down chamber’s work.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Senate pulls all-nighter as GOP protests rules change.”

“Cablevision: Aereo Is Illegal, But Broadcasters Are Wrong in Their Attack on Startup.” Variety has this report on a white paper titled “Aereo and the Public Performance Right” that Cablevision Systems Corp. issued today. A related press release from Cablevision can be accessed here.

Update: In other coverage, Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “Cablevision says broadcasters overreaching in Aereo case.”

“It’s a New York state of mind for some Supreme Court justices”: Robert Barnes has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” John Elwood has a related post titled “The Not-So-Hypothetical.”

And in other news coverage, Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with child abduction case.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, No. 12-820.

“The Mirror of Guantanamo”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Chief Judge For 9th Circuit Cites ‘Epidemic’ Of Prosecutor Misconduct”: Radley Balko has this post at his “The Agitator” blog.

“Nina Pillard, Georgetown Law Professor, Confirmed to D.C. Circuit”: Todd Ruger has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

For those of you still filing federal appellate briefs that contain a separate “Statement of the Case” and “Statement of Facts”: That’s soooooo pre-December 1, 2013. On that date, amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 took effect “remov[ing] the requirement that an appellant’s brief contain separate statements of the case and of the facts” and instead providing that “a single statement of the case must include the relevant factual and procedural history as well as identify the rulings to be reviewed.” (The foregoing quotes are from this helpful primer that the Fifth Circuit‘s clerk’s office recently issued.)

Consequently, nouveau appellate advocates will no longer be left to ponder the endlessly entertaining riddle of how one can or should state “the case” without simultaneously stating “the facts.” On further review, the unquestionably brilliant minds behind the Federal Rules of Appellate procedure have decided that the “Statement of the Case” can and should include the facts.

“Senate set to pull all-nighter, approves federal appeals court nominee”: CNN.com has this report, which notes that “The first vote in the extended session came shortly after 1 a.m. ET as the Senate approved 51-44 the nomination of Nina Pillard to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington.”

Update: You can access the official U.S. Senate roll call vote tally at this link.

In recognition of the time at which her confirmation occurred, the formal investiture ceremony for D.C. Circuit Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard will take place at 1:05 a.m. on a date yet to be announced. The invitations will note that semi-formal attire or pajamas will be appropriate.

After Circuit Judge Pillard establishes herself at the D.C. Circuit as the “fraulein of FERC” and compiles a record of decisions even more moderate than that of California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, she will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a one-third vote (the minimum required once the Senate approved the so-called armageddon option), where she will then be free to “evolve.”