“Dozens of states make it hard to get abortions”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Pornography and Politics”: This profile of Larry Flynt will appear in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“AG questions voting act’s constitutionality”: Today’s edition of The San Antonia Express-News contains an article that begins, “Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott challenged the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in an appeal filed with the U.S. Supreme Court late Friday.”

The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas Appeals Redistricting Decision; Elections Proceed.”

And yesterday, the Texas Attorney General’s Office issued a news release headlined “Texas Files Appeal with U.S. Supreme Court in Redistricting Case.” You can access at this link the Jurisdictional Statement filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Marriage Law Likely Headed To Supreme Court”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Supreme Court rules employees have right to privacy on work computers”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Kirk Makin has an article that begins, “Workplace computers contain so much personal information nowadays that employees have a legitimate expectation of privacy in using them, the Supreme Court of Canada said in a major ruling Friday.”

Today’s edition of The Toronto Star contains an article headlined “Supreme Court of Canada: Employees have privacy rights over workplace computers.”

The Toronto Sun reports that “Supreme Court orders retrial of teacher in child porn case.”

Financial Post has an article headlined “Supreme Court of Canada: Employer’s policies not determinative of privacy rights.”

And The Canadian Press has a report headlined “Richard Cole Child Porn Case: Workplace Privacy Affirmed By Supreme Court In Ruling.”

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

“How Many Constitutions Can Liberals Have?” Online today at The New Republic, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has this review of law professor Akhil Reed Amar‘s new book, “America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By.” The review will appear in the November 8, 2012 print edition of the magazine.

“Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan talks gender, hunting with UT audience”: Megan Boehnke of The Knoxville News Sentinel has this update.

“2nd Circuit sets new rules for immigration cases”: Reuters has this article reporting on an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued earlier this week.

“A New Type of Opinion Is Christened in the Ninth Circuit”: Joe Palazzolo has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Soundbites: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Edition.” The blog of The Yale Daily News yesterday had this post reporting on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks yesterday at a Davenport Master’s Tea. And today’s print edition of that newspaper contains an article headlined “Ginsburg visits campus.”

Justice Ginsburg remains at Yale today, and she is scheduled to take part in a conversation with Linda Greenhouse beginning at 4 p.m. eastern time today that you can view live, online via this link.

Update: The conversation with Justice Ginsburg is getting underway at 4:13 p.m. eastern time.

Second update: If you tuned-in seeking 15 minutes’ worth of introductory remarks, you’re in luck!

Third update: The live event has now ended, but you can view a replay via this link.

“Threatened species listing for polar bears contested in U.S. court”: Reuters has a report that begins, “Polar bears’ designation as a threatened species was challenged in a U.S. appeals court on Friday, with a lawyer for Alaska and other parties arguing that regulators had failed to back up the listing.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “Polar bear fight returns to court.”

“The Conscience of a Judicial Conservative: William Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee and a Republican, but above all he was a lawyer’s lawyer with a clear-eyed appreciation of the duties of his position.” In Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, law professor Richard W. Garnett will have this review of the new book “The Partisan:The Life of William Rehnquist,” by John A. Jenkins.

On a related note, earlier this month, The New Republic posted online a review by law professor Eric A. Posner headlined “Overruled: How Conservative Was Chief Justice Rehnquist?”

And earlier this month, Joan Biskupic of Reuters hosted a discussion with the book’s author on the “After Words” program of C-SPAN2’s BookTV., You can view the video by clicking here.

“Retired Justice O’Connor to hear 2nd Circuit cases next week”: Reuters has this report.

“Crunch time coming up for GOP’s DOMA fight”: Todd Ruger has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Posner on Amar’s Unwritten Constitution: ‘Extremely Strange.'” Orin Kerr had this post yesterday evening at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

You can access the video of Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner‘s remarks via this link.

“Chief Judge KOZINSKI, disagreeing with everyone”: Just when you thought that every possible type of appellate opinion had already been created, Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski goes and invents one more.

“Federal Courthouses Gain Landmark Status”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release.

“Supreme Court Chief Justice Discusses Constitutional Law”: On Wednesday — as I noted in earlier posts that you can access here, here, and here — Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. participated in a public conversation as part of Rice University’s centennial celebration.

C-SPAN has made the video of the Chief Justice’s remarks available via this link.

“U.S. Marriage Act Is Unfair to Gays, Court Panel Says”: John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Another Defeat for the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Today’s edition of The New York Daily News contains an article headlined “New York appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage act; Court says 1996 law that defines marriage as involving a man and a woman is unconstitutional; Boston made same ruling earlier this year.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “Court rules gays and lesbians deserve special protection; The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York strikes down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and becomes the first to say the group is constitutionally protected as minorities.”

The Washington Times reports that “Ruling likely to send gay marriage issue to Supreme Court.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Gay marriage to Supreme Court? More likely after latest rejection of DOMA.; A federal appeals court panel in New York voted 2 to 1 to declare part of DOMA unconstitutional; The opinion, just three weeks after argument, suggests the judges may have been keeping an eye on the Supreme Court.”

Mark Hamblett of the New York Law Journal reports that “Circuit Strikes Key Provision of Marriage Act.”

CNN.com has articles headlined “Federal appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act” and “Victory for lesbian, years after her longtime partner’s death.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Second Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Key Provision of DOMA.”

WSJ.com’s “Metropolis” blog has a post titled “Meet the New Yorker Who Sued to Stop DOMA.”

Online at The New Yorker, Richard Socarides has a blog post titled “A Widow’s Victory, and a Defeat for DOMA.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Major victory for gay rights, same-sex marriage.”

“Guantanamo terrorism convictions proving vulnerable on appeal”: Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post today.

“Democrats Use Health Law to Assail Republicans”: Robert Pear has this article today in The New York Times.

“Pierce man gets a new trial over prosecution’s PowerPoint misuse”: Today’s edition of The Tacoma News Tribune contains an article that begins, “The Washington State Supreme Court has overturned four felony convictions of a Pierce County man, saying a deputy prosecutor violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial by superimposing the words, ‘guilty, guilty, guilty,’ over the man’s photo during a PowerPoint presentation in closing arguments.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Parsing Obama on Guantanamo”: At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post that begins, “What exactly did President Barack Obama mean when he suggested Thursday that Congress needs to do more to establish a ‘legal architecture’ to govern aspects of the war on terror?”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has article headlined “Lawyers Spar Over Rights for 9/11 Detainees.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Richard A. Serrano has an article headlined “U.S. seeks more secrecy in 9/11 case; Prosecutors ask the military judge at Guantanamo Bay for more restrictions against the public release of sensitive material in the Sept. 11 investigation.”

Reuters reports that “Judge in 9/11 case weighs whether Constitution applies at Guantanamo.”

And Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has an article headlined “Alleged al Qaida chief’s vest a snooze, a day later; Small issues dominated the day in war court as the judge discussed location, the defendants read and some spectators took a nap.”

“Man sues over arrest for wearing ‘Occupy’ jacket in Supreme Court”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has an article that begins, “A man who was arrested in the Supreme Court’s museum corridor for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the slogan ‘Occupy Everywhere’ is suing the federal government over the incident.”

“Wash. convictions reversed over PowerPoint show”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Washington State issued today. According to The AP report, “During closing arguments, the deputy Pierce County prosecutor presented a slide show with Glasmann’s mug shot and the word ‘guilty’ superimposed in red letters three times across his face. The justices said unanimously Thursday that was improper, because there was no such image admitted as evidence.”

Today’s 5-to-4 decision consists of a lead opinion, an opinion concurring in the judgment, and a dissenting opinion.

“2nd Appeals Court Rules Against Federal Marriage Act”: The New York Times has this news update.

“DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest. Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.” So holds the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a decision issued today. DOMA, of course, is the acronym for the federal law titled the Defense of Marriage Act.

Second Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Christopher F. Droney joined. Senior Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub dissented on the central issue presented and would have held that “the legislative distinction drawn by DOMA satisfies rational basis review and is therefore constitutional.”

Update: In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act.”

Terry Baynes and Dan Levine of Reuters report that “Appeals court in NY rules gay marriage law unconstitutional.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Marriage Act Violates Same-Sex Couple Rights, Court Says.”

“Invitation to Sue?” At Inside Higher Ed, Scott Jaschik has an article that begins, “A sharply divided federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to reconsider a March ruling that revived a lawsuit by a former graduate student against the University of Oregon. And the dissenting judges on the appeals court say that the refusal could endanger academic freedom and leave faculty members vulnerable to litigious graduate students.”

You can access Chief Judge Alex Kozinski‘s dissent from the Ninth Circuit‘s denial of rehearing en banc at this link. A total of seven judges joined in that dissent.

“Chief Justice Roberts: Technology among top issues for court.” Mike Tolson has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

“The Single Word That Could Make or Break Obamacare: There’s a simple question that could determine the success of the health care mandate — but no one’s asking the candidates.” Online at The Atlantic, law professor Naomi Schoenbaum has an essay that begins, “Obamacare has been one of the yardsticks of Obama’s term in office and one of the touchstones of the 2012 election. Last night’s presidential debate was no exception, with health care reform mentioned at least half a dozen times. But an important piece of the discussion has been missing: is the health care law a tax or a penalty?”

“Reaping the Whirlwind”: At the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post that begins, “On reading the transcript and listening to the audio of last week’s Supreme Court argument in the University of Texas affirmative action case, my primary reaction was one of embarrassment — for the court and also for Texas.”

“Accused 9/11 architect wears hunting vest to Guantanamo court”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update that begins, “The accused architect of the 9/11 attacks was allowed to wear a camouflaged vest to the war court Wednesday then, cloaked in the costume of a fellow combatant, lectured his Army judge on national security.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Interrogation Testimony At Issue in Terror Hearing.”

Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times will contain an article headlined “Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lashes out at military court; At Guantanamo proceedings, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind says Americans have killed ‘millions’ more than the nearly 3,000 who died in the 9/11 attacks.”

The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Khalid Sheik Mohammed accuses U.S. of justifying murder, torture in name of security.”

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Accused 9/11 plotter rants at Guantanamo court.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “9/11 cases: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed speaks in court, lectures judge; The accused 9/11 mastermind had skipped pretrial hearings at Guantanamo, but he made a surprise showing Wednesday afternoon and addressed the court; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had some counsel for the judge.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Mohammed Says U.S. Tortured in Name of National Security.”

Reuters has a report headlined “Alleged 9/11 mastermind: America killed more people than hijackers did.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Accused 9/11 plotter lectures military tribunal.”

Charlie Savage of The New York Times has posted the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s remarks today at this link.

“Supreme Court views not ‘liberal or conservative'”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s top justice says people shouldn’t think the high court makes decisions in terms of a liberal or conservative agenda.”

“Appeals Court Backs School in Missouri Student-Speech Case”: At the School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post that begins, “A student web site containing racist and sexist content caused disruption at a Missouri high school and was likely not protected speech under the First Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled.”

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

“Many strict election laws blocked or delayed”: Curt Anderson of The Associated Press has this report.