“Endorsements point to sharp differences in state Supreme Court hopefuls; Medina has established political connections; Devine has support of religious, conservatives”: Today in The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell has an article that begins, “In Tuesday’s GOP runoff for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court, each candidate’s list of endorsements highlights the differences between them.”

“Teen killers such as Nicholas Lindsey now have a chance to get sentences reduced”: This article appeared yesterday in The Tampa Bay Times.

“Personhood group plans to appeal Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling”: Saturday’s edition of The Oklahoman contained an article that begins, “A national group plans to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal an Oklahoma ruling that its proposed ballot issue to define a fertilized human egg as a person is unconstitutional.”

“Senate could vote on judicial nominee Monday; A Cape Elizabeth lawyer and other choices for federal court have been in a holding pattern”: This article appeared yesterday in The Maine Sunday Telegram.

“Controversial measure is in hands of judge with Valley ties; The ruling Robert Simpson makes would stand if Supreme Court deadlocks”: Peter Hall and Scott Kraus of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania recently had an article that begins, “Pennsylvania’s new voter identification law has sparked controversy, protests and a legal challenge. Now the law’s fate falls to Commonwealth Court Judge Robert ‘Robin’ Simpson of Nazareth.”

“Critics assail 1980s-era hacking law as out of step”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A 1984 U.S. anti-hacking law passed when computer crime was in its infancy is under fire for potentially going too far in criminalizing the actions of employees who violate workplace policies. Judges across the country are divided on how the 28-year-old law, the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, can be applied. At the same time, the Justice Department has signaled it wants to ramp up prosecutions under the law, even as it has lost some cases.”

“A Tragic Accident and a Continuing Legal Battle”: The Texas Tribune has this report today.

“Justice Antonin Scalia on Q&A”: C-SPAN has this preview of tonight’s broadcast of the program “Q&A.”

“Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation”: FoxNews.com has this report.

Bloomberg News reports that “Scalia Rejects Criticism Of Dissent In Arizona Case.”

And WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog has posts titled “Justice Scalia: ‘I’m Not Cantankerous’” and “Supreme Court Justice Scalia Addresses Nation’s Gun Laws.”

You can watch the video of Justice Antonin Scalia’s appearance on today’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday” by clicking here.

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Gun control in the post-Aurora world.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn considers voting against his party to help an Oklahoman get confirmed to federal appeals court; Federal magistrate Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma City, may need both Oklahoma Republican senators to break ranks with the GOP in showdown vote on Monday”: This article appears today in The Oklahoman.

“4th Circuit Limits the Reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — WEC Carolina Energy Solutions v. Miller”: Venkat Balasubramani has this post at the “Technology & Marketing Law Blog” discussing a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued on Thursday.

“Senate Showdown Coming for Appellate Judicial Nominees”: Todd Ruger has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Thanks, Citizens United, for This Campaign Finance Mess We’re In; Apologists for this damaging Supreme Court decision are wrong on the facts and the law”: Adam Skaggs has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Cigarette Makers Lose Bid To End Racketeer Case Monitor”: Bloomberg News has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Court leaves ruling against big tobacco intact.”

“The balance between an attorney’s right to free political speech and a state’s right to regulate attorney conduct is delicate.” So begins the opinion of the court that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

Update: In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Lawyer’s reprimand rejected on free speech grounds.”

“Robin Hood Airport tweet bomb joke man wins case; A man found guilty of sending a menacing tweet threatening to blow up an airport has won a challenge against his conviction”: BBC News has this report.

The Independent (UK) has a news update headlined “Twitter joke trial man Paul Chambers wins appeal victory.”

The Guardian (UK) has a news update headlined “Twitter joke trial: Paul Chambers wins high court appeal against conviction; Accountant says he feels ‘relieved and vindicated’ as court rules his joke tweet about blowing up an airport was not menacing.” In addition, Ian Cram has an essay entitled “The tweet that bombed: the Twitter joke trial, judges and the internet; Case of Paul Chambers illustrates legal habit of shoehorning new practices to fit existing laws” that begins, “At a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1996 to examine the implications of cyberspace for the law and legal practice, Judge Frank Easterbrook argued that attempts to rework existing legal categories to address electronic forms of communication were wholly misguided and likely to cause confusion.”

Financial Times has a news update headlined “Twitter user wins airport tweet appeal.”

Reuters reports that “Bomb joke tweeter wins landmark ruling.”

The Associated Press reports that “British man wins ‘Twitter threat’ appeal.”

And CNN.com reports that “Tweeter cleared of sending menacing airport threat.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Queen’s Bench Division of England’s High Court of Justice at this link.

“U.S. Senate Democrats try to force vote on Oklahoma judicial nominee; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seeks to break a Republican blockade and get a vote on Robert E. Bacharach, a federal magistrate judge in Oklahoma City, for a federal appeals court”: The Oklahoman has this news update.

And Politico.com has a news update headlined “Senate Dems step up judicial wars.”

“Appeals court sides with women who took Prempro”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

“Scalia: Supreme Court disagreements not personal.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Alabama solicitor general details philosophies behind U.S. Supreme Court healthcare act ruling”: The Birmingham News has this update.

“No-fly list lawsuit should proceed in federal court in Portland, appeals panel rules”: The Oregonian has this news update.

Terry Baynes of Reuters reports that “Appeals court revives challenge against US ‘no fly’ list.”

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court allows no-fly challenge to proceed.”

And the ACLU has issued a news release headlined “Federal Appeals Court Allows ‘No Fly List’ Challenge to Proceed; ACLU Represents 15 People Government Put on Secret List and Banned From Flying Without Explanation.”

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

“Defendants can benefit from clarifications in the law: 5th Circuit.” Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report on an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Deals to Keep Generic Drugs Off Market Get a Court Rebuff”: This article will appear Friday in The New York Times.

“Scalia Defends Citizens United, Arizona Immigration Decision”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Ninth Circuit reinstates lawsuit challenging list of known and suspected terrorists who are not permitted to fly in United States airspace: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

My earlier coverage of the oral argument of this appeal can be accessed here.

“C-SPAN Q&A with Justice Antonin Scalia”: C-SPAN has posted online these video clips from an interview scheduled for broadcast this weekend.

“Filling the Eleventh Circuit vacancies”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this blog post online at The Hill.

“Scalia Discusses Views on Textualism and the Process of Co-Writing His New Book”: ABA Journal’s “Law News Now” blog has posted online a lengthy audio clip that you can access via this link.

“Arizona’s Ban At 20 Weeks Shows Country’s Shift On Abortion Law”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Appeals Court: Arizona man can’t sue Medtronic.” On April 17, 2012, Cronkite News Service had this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the previous day.

And a few days later, the “Constitutional Law Prof Blog” had a post titled “Ninth Circuit: Failure to Warn Claim Against Med Device Maker Preempted.”

Yesterday. the Ninth Circuit issued this order granting rehearing en banc in the case.

“Federal appeals court to reconsider California DNA-collection law; A three-judge panel had upheld California’s law that requires police to collect DNA from felony arrestees, but a panel of 11 federal judges will review the case”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court gives DNA sampling law new hearing.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Circuit to Reconsider Mandatory Arrestee DNA Collection.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting rehearing en banc.

My earlier coverage of the original divided three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.

“The Story So Far”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Justice Scalia Disputes Accuracy Of ‘Leak'”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Totenberg also has a separate blog post titled “Interviewing Scalia: Verbal Wrestling Match With A Master.”

“O’Connor Faults Supreme Court Critics with a ‘Lack of Understanding'”: Todd Ruger has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Thanks to C-SPAN, you can access the video of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee via this link.