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?”

“Notice is hereby given that motions to exceed the page or word limitations for briefs are strongly disfavored and will be granted only upon demonstration of extraordinary circumstances.” So states an unusual order entered today on behalf of all judges, active and senior, serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The order notes that “motions to exceed the page/word limitations for briefs are filed in approximately twenty-five percent of cases on appeal, and that seventy-one percent of those motions seek to exceed the page/word limitations by more than twenty percent.”

Wow! In my experience, briefs that exceed the applicable appellate word limit in federal court or page limit in state court typically result from trial counsel’s effort to create an appellate brief by using or combining briefs previously filed in the trial court, instead of writing the appellate brief from scratch.

“Supreme Court appears sympathetic to Idaho couple in 4-year battle with EPA”: Robert Barnes will have this article Tuesday in The Washington Post.

In Tuesday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “High court weighs high-profile case over wetlands, EPA fines.”

In Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Justices Appear Inclined To Rein In EPA.”

And Sean Cockerham of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court hears Idaho couple’s argument against EPA.”

“Justices Grapple With Voting Rights Case That Could Help Tip the House”: Adam Liptak will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

In Tuesday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “High court pressed for time in redistricting case.”

In Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Nathan Koppel will have an article headlined “Texas War On Districts Reaches High Court.”

The San Antonio Express-News has an update headlined “Supreme Court struggles with Texas redistricting.”

Maria Recio of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Supreme Court considers Texas redistricting case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court justices face tangled mess with Texas redistricting plan; Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Monday over competing plans for redrawn legislative districts in Texas amid allegations the state Legislature was diluting Latino political power.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “In Texas Voting Rights Case, Court Chooses a Narrow Path.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Texas Redistricting Case Risks Political Firestorm; Slowly Supreme Court Backs Away.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Hears Messy Texas Redistricting Case.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Hears Texas Redistricting Case.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “Mess With Texas: The Supreme Court wrangles a runaway Texas redistricting case.”

“Supreme Court decision could give California’s ‘Skid Row Stabber’ his release”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

And in Tuesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “High court upholds ruling overturning ‘Skid Row Stabber’ verdicts; The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had set aside Bobby Joe Maxwell’s 1984 murder convictions because a key witness for the prosecution, a notorious jailhouse informant named Sidney Storch, had been exposed as a ‘habitual liar.’”

“Justices Wrestle With Texas Voting Rights Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Todd J. Gillman of The Texas Morning News has an update headlined “Supreme Court signals willingness to further delay Texas primary.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Voting Rights Clash Puts High Court in Fray.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com has a blog post titled “Justices hear appeal over Texas redistricting map.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A way out on Texas?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Perry v. Perez, No.11-713.

“Supreme Court appears to back landowners in clean water cases”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “Justices sympathetic to Idaho landowners in wetlands dispute.”

“Court: Super Bowl massacre letters weren’t threats.” Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“U.S. appeals court orders new trial for Refco lawyer”: Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Ill. lawyer wins appeal in NY trial of $2.4B fraud.”

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

“Supreme Court allows reversal of ‘Skid Row Stabber’ convictions”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court rejects Calif. appeal in Skid Row killings.”

In connection with today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court denying certiorari in Cash v. Maxwell, No. 10-1548, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, while Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined.

“Supreme Court critical of EPA wetland order against Idaho couple”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A weak defense of EPA.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062.

Earlier, Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor previewed the oral argument in an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear case of dream home quashed by EPA; The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a case that shows the EPA is out of control, property-rights advocates say; Environmentalists say the couple involved is merely trying to scapegoat the EPA.”

“Supreme Court backs foreigner campaign donation ban”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Foreigners Rejected by U.S. High Court on Campaign Spending Ban.”

The Associated Press reports that “High court backs foreign campaign contribution ban.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Is new Supreme Court ruling a retreat from Citizens United? The Supreme Court upheld Monday a long-established provision of campaign finance law that seeks to prevent foreign interests from influencing domestic politics.”

“Texas electoral maps at issue before Supreme Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this updated report.

“The biggest danger of Super PACs”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay at CNN.com.

“Justices to ponder full First Amendment freedom for broadcasting”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Hand-Wringing on Health Care: Supporters of Obama’s health care act should stop second-guessing the way it was drafted.” Simon Lazarus has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Suit by Conservative Sees Bias in Law School Hiring”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Programming note: I will be out of the office for a few hours to attend a funeral service in central New Jersey later this morning. Additional posts will appear here this afternoon.

“SCOTUSblog” is likely to provide timely coverage of this morning’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List.

“Administration folds in immigration FOIA fight, admits error”: Josh Gerstein has this blog post at Politico.com.

“Fight Against EPA Orders Heads to Supreme Court”: Jess Bravin will have this article Monday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Election year begins Monday at the Supreme Court”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

Monday’s edition of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram will contain an article headlined “Texas redistricting case hits U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court to enter tangled Texas redistricting case; The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments over whether federal judges overstepped their authority when they revised state and congressional districts drawn by the Texas Legislature.”

“The Sacketts and the Clean Water Act”: This editorial will appear Monday in The New York Times.

“Supreme Court to consider broadcast standards”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Monday in USA Today.

And Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an article headlined “Crying Foul: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to FCC Cussing Crackdown.”