Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment entitled “The Next Step For California’s Gay Marriage Ban” featuring Nina Totenberg.

And this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “California’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, Court Says.”

Dissenting opening paragraph of the day: Tenth Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch today issued a dissenting opinion that begins:

In the richness of the English language, few things can create as much mischief as piling prepositional phrase upon prepositional phrase. The child says, “I saw the man on the hill with the telescope.” Did the child use the telescope to see the man on the hill? Or did the child see a man — or even a hill — bearing a telescope? A newspaper headline heralds, “Brothers Reunited after 20 Years on a Roller Coaster.” Did the brothers recently bump into each other at an amusement park? Or were they the long suffering experimental subjects of some evil genius?

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

“States Target Foreign Law; Critics Say Bills Curbing Judges’ Discretion Are Unneeded, Show Anti-Islam Bias”: Ashby Jones and Joe Palazzolo have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“For Prop 8, No Hollywood Endings: Today, the most liberal judges in the most liberal state could have made history; Instead, they opted for much less.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

The latest target of the Seventh Circuit’s ire for not living up to that court’s expected standards is the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link. Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, explains (among other expressions of dissatisfaction found in the opinion) that “Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, which represents Northrop, should be able to tell the difference between residence and domicile, and should not have any difficulty complying with Rule 38.”

Looking on the bright side, however, Morgan Lewis’s client did nevertheless win the appeal.

“Prop 8 Ruling: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Rests Unconstitutionally On Dislike Of Gays, 9th Circuit Says.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“In Prop. 8 Ruling, the Liberal Lion Coos; Stephen Reinhardt’s opinions sometimes have a short shelf life, but this one seems to be built to last”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The American Prospect.

And online at The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “What’s Next for Proposition 8? Same-sex marriage supporters are celebrating today’s 9th Circuit ruling; But the real question is whether the opinion will persuade the Supreme Court.”

“Appeals court puts 5 deportation cases on hold”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A sharply divided federal appeals court put five deportation cases on hold Monday and asked the government how the immigrants, mostly longtime residents with U.S. citizen children, fit into the Obama administration’s plan to focus on removing the most dangerous illegal entrants.”

“Court upholds CDC counselor’s firing over same-sex marriage flap”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “US court sides with CDC over fight with counselor.”

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

“Initial Thoughts on 9th Circuit Prop. 8 Decision”: Law professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” law professor Orin Kerr looks ahead in a post titled “Supreme Court Grants Cert in Prop 8 Case.”

Update: Also at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Thoughts on the Ninth Circuit’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision.”

And at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whalen has a post titled “Initial Assessment of Ninth Circuit’s Anti-Prop 8 Ruling.”

“A U.S. appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “California gay marriage ban struck down by federal appeals court.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Appeals court strikes down Calif.’s gay marriage ban.”

Geoffrey A. Fowler and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have a news update headlined “Appeals Court Rejects Gay Marriage Ban.”

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Calif. same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.”

The Sacramento Bee has a blog post titled “Appeals court upholds gay marriage.”

And The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update headlined “Court rejects ban on same-sex marriage.”

Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Proposition 8 case: I have posted the ruling online at this link. And the court has posted the ruling at this link.

In the majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the court has ruled that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith issued an opinion dissenting in part in which he explains that he is not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: CA gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.”

Reuters has a report headlined “California gay marriage ban unconstitutional: ruling.”

Bloomberg News reports that “California’s Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional by U.S. Appeals Court.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Ban on gay marriage struck down.”

“This is not your typical lawsuit against the Government. Plaintiffs here have sued because they don’t want government benefits. They seek to disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits for hospitalization costs.” So begins the majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

Update: In early news coverage,The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: Seniors can’t reject Medicare right.”

“Obama quasi-endorses constitutional amendment to limit money in politics”: Josh Gerstein has this blog post at Politico.com.

“High Court Halftime: The October 2011 Term At Midpoint.” The Washington Legal Foundation is hosting this event today, scheduled to begin moments from now at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. Scheduled to participate in the discussion are the Honorable Dick Thornburgh, Carter Phillips, and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier.

After completing a free online registration, you can watch the program live, online via this link.

“Mother fighting Social Security Administration may set court precedent”: FOX 13 News of Salt Lake City has a report that begins, “A child conceived after his father’s death. Should his mother have a legal right to Social Security benefits? One Utah woman says yes and is taking her case to the Utah Supreme Court.”

“HIV-disclosure obligations under scrutiny in separate cases”: Kirk Makin had this article yesterday in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“Judge says he was forced to dismiss challenge to Texas sonogram law”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

“Court hears case of the gated gator that gobbled the guest granny”: This article appears today in The Savannah Morning News.

And in today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin reports that “Court hears lawsuit about alligator attack.”

“2 different career paths define Christie N.J. Supreme Court nominees”: Today’s edition of The Newark Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “One nominee has logged long hours in the courtroom, and the other has rarely appeared before a judge. One has a $3.5 million real estate portfolio, while the other owns less than $1 million worth of property.”

“Top court asked to hear issue on Banks; Prosecutors say court that ruled Banks incompetent to be executed misapplied law”: In today’s edition of The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Terrie Morgan-Besecker has an article that begins, “Prosecutors have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a court ruling that deemed mass murderer George Banks incompetent to be executed.”

“Georgia Court Rejects Law Aimed at Assisted Suicide”: The New York Times contains this article today.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Georgia Supreme Court ruling appears at this link.

“U.S. judge says he’ll rule ‘with dispatch’ on Pennsylvania’s 2012 voting map”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Court to rule on California gay marriage ban”: Peter Henderson and Dan Levine of Reuters have this report.