“Court Rejects Suit By Injured Inmate”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal will have this article Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: No new Bivens remedy.”

“High Court Reverses Conviction in Killings”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Supreme Court orders new trial for convicted New Orleans killer.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Blunt memo to the DA.”

“Ifs, Ands, and Butts: The Supreme Court gets the full-monty treatment.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“TV Decency Is a Puzzler For Justices”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court weighs technology, culture in FCC power to monitor airwaves.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court appears unlikely to ease broadcast decency rules; During arguments in FCC vs. Fox TV, the justices indicate they want the public airwaves to remain free of cursing, nudity and sex scenes during prime time.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Top justices grapple with FCC filters on cursing, nudity.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Justices Voice Support for Broadcast-TV Decency.”

Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Times will contain an article headlined “Supreme Court mulls profanity, nudity on network TV.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Lawyer makes startling argument in Supreme Court hearing on FCC; A lawyer arguing that the FCC has gone overboard in its regulation of broadcast nudity and language directed the justices’ attention to the bare buttocks of statues in the Supreme Court; The justices are considering whether FCC rules are inconsistent.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “TV Indecency Crackdown by FCC Gets Support at High Court.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “In indecency case, government faces tough path to victory.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Hearing on Indecency Leaves One Justice Blushing.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Frets Over TV’s Devolving Standards of Decency.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Hears Arguments In FCC Case.”

“Justices Weigh Public-Sector Unions’ Political Fees”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“GOP: Corporate donation ban unconstitutional.” Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post.

“Supreme Court denies inmate’s request for lawsuit over prison injury”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Indecency on TV: Supreme Court reluctant to ease profanity rules.” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post.

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices question why some TV nudity allowed.”

“U.S. Supreme Court sets aside conviction in 1995 massacre”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update.

And Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court overturns New Orleans man’s murder conviction.”

“Moore’s funding an issue”: Today’s edition of The Montgomery Advertiser contains an editorial that begins, “Perennial political candidate Roy Moore has two big problems in his race to become chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The first problem is that he doesn’t have many campaign donors. The second problem is that his biggest donor — who supplied almost two-thirds of all the money Moore had raised through December — has some strange ideas.”

“Ga. court upholds ruling in Jewell suit”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld a previous court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed by survivors of Richard Jewell against The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.”

“PMC: Orie Melvin Case Demands Swift Action and Long Term Reform.” The organization Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts issued this news release today.

“Appeals court unblocks Texas abortion law”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.

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

“Court: Okla. ban on Islamic law unconstitutional.” The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, The Denver Post reports that “10th Circuit upholds ruling blocking Shariah law ban.”

“High court weighs policy against curse words on TV”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this updated report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Many options on TV rules.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 10-1293.

“Gonzalez sworn in as new justice; Latino justice hailed for improving court access to poor”: This article appears today in The Olympian of Olympia, Washington.

A twist on the “appellate battlefield” analogy: No doubt many readers will be familiar with the saying that “Appellate judges sit above the fray as the battle unfolds beneath and when the smoke clears and the dust settles, they descend from their lofty perches and shoot the wounded.”

Today, Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond M.Kethledge has issued a dissenting opinion that begins as follows:

Every trial presents its own field of maneuver, with issues rising up in different places on the terrain. Some issues reach commanding heights, others are just a gentle rise; some have evidence arrayed densely on each side, others have evidence more thin. Whatever the layout, the district court knows the ground better than we do. Its understanding comes from the front lines, whereas we are back in a headquarters tent. And thus we defer a great deal to the district court’s judgment as to whether a particular piece of evidence aligns with one issue, or another, or instead does not belong on the field at all.

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

James Vicini of Reuters is reporting: He has articles headlined “US court rules for arbitration in credit card case” and “US high court rejects inmate lawsuit versus Geo employees.”

“Democrats and Executive Overreach: It’s a mistake to excuse Obama’s disregard for the Constitution; Precedents set now will be exploited by the next administration.” Law professor Michael W. McConnell has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Appeals court: Texas may enforce abortion law.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.”

“Mystery Buyer Wins Auction for Copyright Troll’s Domain”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“Court to tackle Florida redistricting suit”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has a report that begins, “A day after the Supreme Court heard arguments in a Texas redistricting battle, another redistricting case with potential national implications takes center stage, this time in Florida. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will hear a challenge in a racially-charged lawsuit over an amendment to Florida’s constitution.”

“Businessman seeks damages despite verdict in defamation case”: Today’s edition of The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “Attorneys for the Luzerne County businessman who last month lost a long-fought defamation lawsuit against The Citizens’ Voice said Monday the verdict contradicted evidence, legal precedent and constituted an abuse of judicial power.”

Access online today’s opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued four decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Gonzalez v. Thaler, No. 10-895. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Minneci v. Pollard, No. 10-1104. Justice Scalia issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. And Justice Ruth Bader GInsburg issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948. Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145. Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t allow private prison employees lawsuit“; “Court overturns New Orleans murder conviction“; “Supreme Court rules in favor of arbitration“; and “High court won’t let man appeal murder conviction.”

“Supreme Court hears appeal in alienation of affections case”: The Rapid City Journal contains this article today.

“Another ethics complaint filed against Justice Gableman”: This article appears today in The Wisconsin State Journal.

And The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that “Gableman asked to recuse himself from a third case.”

“Joan Orie Melvin a target of grand jury”: Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains an article that begins, “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin received formal notification that she is a target of an Allegheny County grand jury that recommended prosecution of her two sisters for using state employees for political work, the Tribune-Review has learned.”

“Supreme Court won’t reinstate murder convictions”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“High court weighs policy against curse words on TV”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report. The AP also has a report headlined “Steven Tyler to Supreme Court: Watch the language.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Are tough FCC indecency laws obsolete? Supreme Court hears free-speech case; Fox and ABC say tougher FCC regulations of broadcasters regarding expletives and partial nudity are discriminatory in an age when cable and Internet programs are not similarly regulated.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court To Consider FCC Indecency Case.”

And today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “The FCC, the Supreme Court and policing indecency: Punishing a broadcaster for inadvertent remarks over which it has no control makes no sense.”

“Senator should drop block of judicial nominee”: This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Mr. Menendez’s Missing ‘Blue Slip.’”

Yesterday’s edition of The New York Daily News contained an editorial entitled “Sen. Bob Menendez blocks a qualified candidate for judge to get revenge; What else explains his attempt to derail Patty Shwartz’s nomination?”

And columnist Tom Moran of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has an essay entitled “Why did Sen. Robert Menendez block nomination of favored N.J. judge?”