“US appeals court grants Hobby Lobby full hearing”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has granted Hobby Lobby’s request for the entire court to hear its challenge of a requirement that it provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraceptive pills.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting an initial hearing en banc at this link.

“Who Opted to Take Gay Marriage Case? Ask Justice Scalia.” Adam Liptak will have this article Saturday in The New York Times.

“The Clock Ticks on Racial Preferences: The Supreme Court may soon rule that universities cannot anymore use race as a factor in admissions — some 15 years sooner than Justice O’Connor predicted in 2003.” James Taranto has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Decades After O’Connor, Role of Women Judges Still Growing”: The Third Branch News, a publication of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, has this report today.

“Flip-Flopping Federalists: On Obamacare, conservative judges were glad to limit Congress’ power; To uphold DOMA, they’ll need to do the opposite.” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Argentina Has Last Chance to Influence U.S. Court in Bonds Case”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Appeals court revives lawsuit against Justice Dept.” Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has revived part of a lawsuit by attorneys applying for a prestigious Justice Department program during the George W. Bush administration who alleged they were denied interviews because of their liberal political affiliations.”

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

Update: At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post titled “Lawyers rejected by Justice Department notch partial win.”

“Panel predicts high court will take middle ground on pay for delay”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.

“Long Prison Term Is Less So Thanks to Regrets by a Judge”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Marriage debate revives questions about high court role as social change-maker”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for NBC News, has this report.

In today’s edition of USA Today, Richard Wolf has an article headlined “For same-sex marriage, progress without precedent? Even if the Supreme Court decides historic cases on narrow grounds, proponents of gay marriage say a win is a win.”

Online at Slate, law professor John Culhane has a jurisprudence essay titled “DIG It: Explaining standing and dismissal in the California gay marriage case.”

And Grant R. Darwin has posted online at SSRN an article titled “Originalism and Same-Sex Marriage” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“The case for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court”: Walter Pincus has this essay in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Montco judge wins hearing on mandatory retirement”: Today’s edition of The Intelligencer of Doylestown, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court is taking a case that will determine whether judges throughout the state, including themselves, can serve on the bench past the age of 70.”