“Federal court ruling loosens reporting requirements for independent political expenditures in Iowa”: The Des Moines Register has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court Issues New Rule Barring Protests on Plaza”: Adam Liptak has this post at “The Caucus” blog of The New York Times.

And at Politico.com, Tal Kopan has a blog post titled “Supreme Court issues new protest ban.”

“On DNA, Scalia was right”: Columnist Eugene Robinson will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Guantanamo judge orders first closed session of Obama war court”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“SCOTUS in Myriad: Federal Circuit doesn’t know what’s patent-eligible.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“Obama’s Pen May Shape Scope of Marriage Ruling”: Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “A Supreme Court ruling this month that could overturn the ban on federal benefits for same-sex couples is presenting the Obama administration with a series of complicated and politically sensitive decisions: how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.”

“Supreme Court strikes down parts of L.A. port’s Clean Truck Program”: The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“AP: Gov. Corbett To Nominate Correale Stevens For Pa. Supreme Court Vacancy.” The Associated Press has this report.

Stevens currently serves as the President Judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. I know Judge Stevens quite well, and — if this report is correct — the appointment would represent a very positive development for litigants with cases pending before Pennsylvania’s highest court.

Update: In other coverage, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Corbett plans to pick Stevens for Pa. high court.”

Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire is reporting: He has articles headlined “Justices rule for Okla. over Texas in interstate water war” and “Ruling curbs port’s crackdown on truck emissions.”

“The Supreme Court’s Bad Science on Gene Patents”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

Online at The New Republic, Jeff Guo has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Reveals its Ignorance of Genetics.”

Online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay titled “Patently Unfair: The Supreme Court won’t let the biotech industry own nature — which is good for you and me.”

And At Forbes.com, Steven Salzberg has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Gets Decision Right On Gene Patents, Science Wrong.”

“U.S. Supreme Court sides with Oklahoma in water case; In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court says a Texas state agency has no right to reach into Oklahoma for a share of water”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this news update.

Richard Wolf of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court sides with Oklahoma in water fight; Decision could impact multistate water compacts that are common throughout the West.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court plugs up Oklahoma river as water source for Texas.”

And The Texas Tribune reports that “Supreme Court Backs Oklahoma Over Texas Water District.”

“‘Pattern of misconduct’ demands full investigation of Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones”: This post appears today at the “Justice Watch” blog of the Alliance for Justice. The post links to a letter that the organization’s president issued today in support of the judicial misconduct complaint.

“New protest ban for the plaza”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “New anti-demonstration rule at Supreme Court.”

Toobin predicts that he will end predictions: Politico.com reports that “Jeffrey Toobin pledges to end predictions.”

“Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules against patenting human genes.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices rule human genes cannot be patented; Supreme Court decision is a win for women with genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers, as well as geneticists and researchers who had criticized a Utah company’s exclusive patent.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have a news update headlined “Supreme Court Says Human Genes Aren’t Patentable.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court rejects patents for natural human genes.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Gene Patents Limited by Court in Mixed Ruling for Myriad.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court says naturally occurring human DNA can’t be patented.”

Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court rules genes can’t be patented.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Rules Natural DNA Not Patentable.”

At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Human Gene Patents.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: No patent on natural gene work.”

And at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Rejects Human-Gene Patents — Sort Of.”

“DC circuit reviewing judge’s alleged misconduct”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A council of federal judges in Washington will look into a misconduct complaint against a conservative judge who’s alleged to have made racially discriminatory comments.”

My most recent earlier coverage appears here and here.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued four decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Los Angeles, No. 11-798. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, No. 11-889. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Davila, No. 12-167. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398. Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court says human genes cannot be patented“; “Court sides with Oklahoma in Red River dispute“; and “Court overturns part of port’s trucking plan.”

“Prostitution appeal finally gets its day in court”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Kirk Makin has an article that begins, “Six years and 25,000 pages of evidence after it began, a landmark Charter challenge to the country’s prostitution laws reaches the Supreme Court of Canada Thursday.” Makin also has a related article headlined “Crown punts sex-for-hire issue to politicians in landmark court battle.”

And The Canadian Press reports that “Supreme Court to hear prostitution challenge as protesters prepare.”

“D.C.-based groups bombarded state high court races with ads; Out-of-state groups spent millions to influence voters’ supreme court choices”: Alan Suderman and Ben Wieder of The Center for Public Integrity have this report today.

“Judge tosses out law banning protests on Supreme Court plaza”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Ban on demonstrations outside Supreme Court struck down.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Free speech outside Supreme Court: Ban on protests in plaza struck down; A 60-year-old statute barring all protest on the marble plaza outside the US Supreme Court is ‘irreconcilable with the First Amendment,’ a federal judge in Washington ruled.”

And Tal Kopan of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Ban on Supreme Court protests ruled unconstitutional.”

“Top court’s gay marriage ruling won’t be last word”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this news analysis.

“Obama’s Supreme Court Losing Streak: 0-3 in Property Rights Cases”: Damon W. Root has this post at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog.

“Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling Hinges on Kennedy”: Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has this report.

“Report: Campaign Contributions Influence State Courts.” Zoe Tillman of The National Law Journal has this article.

This blog’s earlier coverage of the report can be accessed here.

“Rare formal review ordered for federal judge”: The Houston Chronicle has this report.

My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Police Agencies Are Assembling Records of DNA”: Joseph Goldstein has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.