“Tapes reveal Thurgood Marshall’s rocky road to the Supreme Court”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report. And a related item is headlined “Johnson to Marshall: ‘I have a rather big problem.’”

“Betty Boop creator’s family loses copyright case”: Reuters has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Third Circuit Court hears appeal on federal DNA collection”: Nathan Gorenstein has this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And on Monday, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review previewed the oral argument in an article headlined “DNA collection before conviction fought in federal court.”

You can access the audio of yesterday’s spirited oral argument before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via this link (73.0MB Windows Media audio file).

“N.J. lawsuit over severed fingers leads to U.S. Supreme Court case on product liability”: The Newark Star-Ledger has this news update.

“McEwen sees justice in tell-all”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “Four months after Lillian McEwen broke a two-decade silence about her longtime relationship with Clarence Thomas, the retired administrative law judge has written a book.”

“U.S. Supreme Court considers Louisville man’s crack-cocaine sentence”: The Louisville Courier-Journal has this news update.

“Professors ask Congress for an ethics code for Supreme Court”: This article will appear Thursday in The Washington Post.

“Branstad’s Supreme Court choices: Edward Mansfield, Thomas Waterman and Bruce Zager.” The Des Moines Register has a news update that begins, “Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad this afternoon appointed two judges and an attorney to the Iowa Supreme Court.”

And in related news, IowaStateDaily.com reports that “House seeks to alter Supreme Court nominations.”

Access online the audio of the Third Circuit en banc oral argument in which I participated this morning: You can download the oral argument via this link (81.5MB Windows Media audio file).

“Supreme Court Allows Lawsuit Over Rear Seat Belts”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Court says Mazda can be sued over seat-belt death.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court OKs lawsuits over cars’ lack of best safety equipment; The ruling reverses California court decisions in the case of a man’s claim against Mazda that his wife would have survived a crash if her seat had a lap and shoulder belt, not just a lap belt.”

The Detroit News has an update headlined “Court: Family can sue Mazda over seat belt death.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court allows lawsuits against automakers over seat belt design; Federal law does not shield automakers from potential lawsuits filed on behalf of passengers injured while wearing lap-only seat belts, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Auto Industry Can Be Sued Over Seatbelt Design, U.S. Supreme Court Rules.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court allows lawsuits over seat belts.”

And at her “Crossroads” blog, Jan Crawford of CBS News has a post titled “In twist, Supreme Court allows seatbelt lawsuit.”

“Supreme Court upholds California’s loose rules for inmate appeals”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

Betty Boop, on appeal: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Work for Utah’s federal judges piling up while D.C. stalls out”: This article appears today in The Salt Lake Tribune.

“Court: Family can sue Mazda over seat belt death.” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report on one of the two argued cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court issued rulings this morning.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 08-1314, reversing a California-based appellate court other than the Ninth Circuit. All non-recused Justices joined in the ruling except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the decision. You can access the oral argument via this link.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Walker v. Martin, No. 09-996, reversing the Ninth Circuit in a habeas case. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Gov’t drops defense of anti-gay marriage law”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.” The AP also has a related report headlined “WH: Obama still ‘grappling’ with gay marriage.”

In other coverage, Charlie Savage of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Obama Orders End to Defense of Federal Gay Marriage Law.”

David G. Savage and James Oliphant of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “Gay marriage: Obama administration won’t defend part of marriage act; In a key shift on gay rights, the administration says a section of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as applied to gay couples who are legally married under state law; The administration vows not to defend the law against two lawsuits brought by same-sex couples.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S. says DOMA ban invalid.”

The U.S. Department of Justice has posted online the “Letter from the Attorney General to Congress on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Programming note: On Wednesday morning, I’m scheduled to argue before nine judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sitting en banc.

At 10 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more opinions in argued cases. You can access those rulings via this link as the Court posts them online. In addition, “SCOTUSblog” is likely to offer prompt coverage.

Additional posts will appear here Wednesday afternoon.

Update: If you don’t enjoy presenting oral argument to an en banc federal appellate court, then you should not be operating an appellate law blog.

That said, I will link to the oral argument audio when it becomes available via the Third Circuit’s web site. In addition, the court ordered that a copy of the transcript be filed, and I will post the transcript to the blog when it becomes available.

“Court Weighs the Power of Congress”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Justices Weigh 10th Amendment.”

And The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “High court hears Pennsylvania case of love, poison, and rights.”

“Federal appeals Judge David R. Thompson dies at 80; Judge Thompson came from a family that has been part of the fabric of San Diego’s legal community for 100 years”: The San Diego Union-Tribune has posted this obituary online today.

“The Case of the Poisoned Lover: The Supreme Court gets its sexiest case ever, but all it wants to talk about is standing.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Benefitting from confusion.”

“Five Years Later, Justice Thomas Still Silent”: Nina Totenberg had this report on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Supreme Court bars lawsuits over side effects from children’s vaccines; The Supreme Court upholds a federal law that offers compensation to victims while shielding vaccine makers from lawsuits by parents”: David G. Savage will have this article Wednesday in The Los Angeles Times.

And Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules vaccine makers protected from lawsuits.”

“High court debates implications of poisoned paramour case”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

“Court Upholds Law on Vaccine Suits”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

“High court rules against Mt. Lebanon girl’s vaccine suit”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this news update.

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “High court rules against parents in drug vaccine case.”

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Court backs law protecting vaccine makers.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Parents can’t sue drug firms when vaccines cause harm, Supreme Court says; A federal law grants drug companies immunity from certain lawsuits from injuries or deaths tied to vaccines, the US Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Suits Against Vaccine Makers Curbed by U.S. Supreme Court in Pfizer Case.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules for vaccine makers on lawsuits.”

And at her “Crossroads” blog, Jan Crawford of CBS News has a post titled “Supreme Court rejects vaccine lawsuit.”

“N.C. Voters: Campaign Contributions Influence Court Ruling.” The organizations Justice at Stake Campaign and the N.C. Center for Voter Education issued this news release today.

“[U]npublished orders like those the amicus cites may be considered persuasive authority, but they do not constrain a panel of the court from reaching a contrary conclusion in a published opinion after full consideration of the issue.” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued this decision today addressing the precedential effect of that court’s unpublished decisions.

“Conn. home invasion defense: Client not the devil.” The Associated Press has this report.

“Robust and Wide-Open”: Law professor Justin Driver had this review (free access) of the book “Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion” by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel in the February 17, 2011 issue of The New Republic.

“Court seems likely to let jilted lover appeal”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court seems likely to allow a woman who tried to get back at her husband’s pregnant lover with toxic chemicals to challenge her federal anti-terrorism conviction.”

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Bond v. United States, No. 09-1227, by clicking here.

“Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Mourns Death of Senior Judge David R. Thompson”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release.

“Justice praises selection system”: Today’s edition of The Daily Iowan contains an article that begins, “Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins said the only problem with the process to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices is they’re not running against another person but the notion of an ideal judge.”

Access online today’s opinions in argued cases and Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued two opinions in argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of Revenue, No. 09-520. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, No. 09-152. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Kagan did not take part in the ruling. You can access the oral argument via this link.

You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in two cases and invited the views of the Solicitor General’s office in two cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court rules against parents in drug vaccine case“; “Court: Railroad can challenge Alabama tax“; “High court rejects appeal over divided jury“; “High court rejects new case on 10 Commandments“; and “Court won’t stop Nevada from banning brothel ads.”

“DNA Privacy Case Highlights List of 3rd Circuit En Banc Arguments”: Shannon P. Duffy has this article today in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

The article summarizes all three of the en banc cases to be argued tomorrow before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, including the case that I’ll be arguing. Additional information about that case can be accessed via this post from two weeks ago.

“Biotech alfalfa success still uncertain despite court victory”: This article appears today in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“Orie’s office called ‘frantic’ over intern complaint”: Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains an article that begins, “A former Senate staffer described an office ‘in frantic mode’ the day that a former colleague resigned, charging that state Sen. Jane Orie, R-Mc-Candless, had used her district office and staff to aid her sister’s campaign for the state Supreme Court.”

And today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains an article headlined “Witness: Orie office in ‘frantic mode’ after activities reported.”