“Venezuela Rebuffed by U.S. High Court on Bandagro Bond Suit”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Supreme Court: Police need warrant to use GPS tracking on cars.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “High Court Backs Privacy Rights in GPS Case.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices rule against police, say GPS surveillance requires search warrant.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Warrantless GPS Tracking Unconstitutional, Supreme Court Rules.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Tight limit on police GPS use.”

“For Justices, State of the Union Can Be a Trial”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Gov. Christie nominates two for state Supreme Court, including gay African-American mayor”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has this news update.

“Court won’t hear arguments demanding Kagan recusal”: The Associated Press has this report.

Update: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A note on Kagan and health care.”

“Why Is the Justice Department Still Defending FBI Ties to the Mob? The courts refuse to protect the feds for harboring James ‘Whitey’ Bulger while he and his Winter Hill gang killed.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.

My earlier coverage of last Friday’s First Circuit rulings can be accessed here.

“Supreme Court: Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts California’s slaughter ban.” Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Supreme Court limits police use of GPS to track suspects”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Police Use of GPS Devices to Track Suspects’ Cars Limited by Supreme Court.”

Access online today’s Order List and decisions in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases. The Court issued a per curiam summary reversal and three rulings in argued cases.

The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Ryburn v. Huff, No. 11-208.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in National Meat Assn. v. Harris, No. 10-224. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Reynolds v. United States, No. 10-6549. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “High court: warrant needed for GPS tracking“; “Court overturns Calif. slaughterhouse law“; and “Court says sex offenders challenge arrest.”

“PA Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Legislative Redistricting Plan”: Pennsylvania Cable Network will carry the oral arguments live beginning at 9:30 a.m. today. You can view the oral arguments live, online via this link.

“Perry’s Good Idea: The Governor vs. the Supreme Court.” Hendrik Hertzberg has this comment in the January 30, 2012 issue of The New Yorker.

“2011 Set Stage for War Over Abortion”: Roll Call has this report.

“Administration nominees awaiting next move by GOP”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Senate Republicans are returning to Washington in an angry mood over President Barack Obama’s appointments to two key agencies during a year-end break. More than 70 nominees to judgeships and senior federal agency positions are awaiting the next move from Republicans, who can use Senate rules to block votes on some or all of Obama’s picks.”

And The Hill reported last week that “Obama’s recess appointments might not hold up in court.”

“Law firm knee deep in state’s many hot-button issues”: Today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal contains an article that begins, “The news last month that a conservative Supreme Court justice had received two years of free legal service while fighting an ethics charge was just the latest indication of an increasingly cozy relationship between the Republican Party and one of Wisconsin’s most prominent law firms.”

“Louisiana grapples with juvenile crime decision by Supreme Court”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

“Sue your own state? Why not? The Supreme Court, in a Maryland case, should rule against the state, and also reexamine other decisions that have made it hard for people to sue their own states.” This editorial will appear Monday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Little Red (Litigious) Shoes”: In the Sunday Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Jeannie Suk has an essay that begins, “Can you trademark the color red? This week a federal appellate court will hear arguments in a case involving this very question.”

“Latif Public Cert Petition Released”: Benjamin Wittes has this post at the “Lawfare” blog, which has posted the document at this link.

“Warrantless electronic tracking debate awaits U.S. Supreme Court ruling”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Keeping Jesus in government.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“Iowa high court ruling reflects debate on homeowners’ rights in police searches; But the decision leaves a Polk County case involving a drug hunt unchanged”: The Des Moines Register today contains an article that begins, “Iowa Supreme Court justices Friday unleashed 61 pages of written debate about the right of homeowners to consent or refuse police searches but left unchanged a Polk County case that had mixed results for police who searched for drugs in an Ankeny mobile home. The ruling prompted two justices to argue that Iowa should have a rule requiring law enforcement officials to tell homeowners that they can decline police permission to search their dwelling.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Iowa at this link.

“Court rules D.A. can’t recoup salary costs in cadaver case”: Joseph A. Slobodzian has this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Justice Joan Orie Melvin says she will hear redistricting appeal”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has this news update.

“Scalia and Thomas: Who Cares If Your Lawyer Abandons You on Death Row? Fortunately, the rest of their colleagues disagree.” Adam Serwer has this blog post online at Mother Jones.

“The Affirmative Action War Goes On”: This editorial will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“A Supreme Obamacare test”: Columnist George F. Will has this op-ed in The Washington Post.

“Occupiers wag fingers at Supreme Court over political donation rule”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The Pasadena Star-News reports today that “Pasadena protest takes aim at Citizens United.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Protesters occupy federal courthouse over campaign finance ruling.”

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports that “Protesters mark second anniversary of Citizens United.”

And The Oregonian reports that “Occupy the Courts rally in Portland lambasts law giving corporations ‘personhood.’”

“Reversal of sonogram law not likely in Sparks’ court, he says”: In today’s edition of The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell has an article that begins, “U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks made it clear Friday that opponents of the state’s new pre-abortion sonogram requirement have little hope of overturning the law in his court. Sounding resigned during an afternoon hearing, Sparks noted that a federal appeals court forcefully overruled his August opinion that found the law unconstitutional, leaving no room for the challenge to proceed.”

And today’s edition of The San Antonio Express-News contains an article headlined “Judge: Sonogram law likely to stand.”

“Supreme Court Ruling Gives GOP an Edge in Texas”: Jess Bravin and Nathan Koppel have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports today that “Texas’ court-drawn redistricting maps are thrown out.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “Supreme Court throws out court-drawn Texas redistricting maps.”

The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Supreme Courts rejects Texas’ interim district maps.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court tells Texas judges to do a better job on election maps; Saying federal judges in Texas exceeded their authority in rejecting election districts drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature, the Supreme Court instructed the judges to find remedies closer to the state’s maps.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Orders Redo Of Texas Redistricting Plan.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour contained a segment entitled “Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Electoral Maps ‘Huge Setback’ for Democrats.”

“Justices spar at USC over Constitution, the court, the law”: This article appears today in The State newspaper of Columbia, South Carolina, along with an article headlined “Graham facilitates Supreme Court justices’ visit.”

“Gableman says he won’t recuse himself from disputed cases”: Patrick Marley has this article today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Associated Press reports that “Gableman won’t recuse himself from high-profile disputed cases.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Wisconsin High Court Judge Won’t Step Back From Union Case.”

“Kansas Law on Sodomy Stays on Books Despite a Cull”: A.G. Sulzberger has this article today in The New York Times.

“U.S. appeals court says sex offenders have right to libraries”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a policy barring registered sex offenders from public libraries in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was unconstitutional, a decision that could have reverberations across the nation.”

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

“Court favors families in Bulger case”: The Boston Globe has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court today upheld million-dollar judgments in favor of families of James ‘Whitey’ Bulger’s alleged murder victims, finding that the government was liable for the deaths because of the FBI’s corrupt relationship with the gangster.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today issued two related rulings in the matter, and you can access the rulings here and here.

“Nourse asks Obama to withdraw her nomination to federal appeals court”: Bruce Vielmetti has this post at the “Proof & Hearsay” blog of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.