“Federal Youth Case on Trial; Prosecution of 10-Year-Old on Sex Charges Stokes Debate Over Juvenile Justice”: In Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Zusha Elinson will have this article reporting on an appeal now pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

The appeal was argued last month, and the oral argument audio can be accessed via this link.

“Supreme Court opens doors to cases on campaign money, abortion”: This video segment featuring Marcia Coyle appeared on this evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour.

“Supreme Court refuses to intervene in lacrosse case; Federal civil-rights claims by 3 players denied”: The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court turns down Medtronic appeal; The suit dealing with repairing heart valves without surgery could cost the giant $245 million”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear tobacco manufacturers’ appeal”: The Winston-Salem Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court rejects Argentina’s appeal in sovereign debt fight; The decision upholds a 2012 ruling by a lower court obliging Argentina to pay bondholders that have refused offers to renegotiate the value of their holdings”: This article will appear Tuesday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Supreme Court Ponders Suits in Stanford Fraud Over Securities That Never Existed”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

In Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court returns to work, hears case on R. Allen Stanford’s Ponzi scheme.”

And in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Justices Hear Case Tied to Stanford; Plaintiffs Argue Financial and Law Firms Helped Aid $7 Billion Ponzi Scheme.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

“Miami Herald sources: Capitol Hill lawyer chosen as Pentagon’s ‘Guantanamo closer.'” Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“The Roberts Court: What Kind of Conservatives?” Law professor David Cole has this post today at the blog of The New York Review of Books.

“Why I Am a Scalia Skeptic”: Daniel McCarthy has this blog post today at The American Conservative.

“High Court Tapped Fee Pool to Open Term”: Brent Kendall has this post at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

“Brown allows illegal immigrants to get law licenses — but noncitizens can’t serve on juries”: Howard Mintz and Jessica Calefati of The San Jose Mercury News have this update.

In posts of interest from Education Week’s “School Law” blog: Mark Walsh today has posts titled “Supreme Court Declines to Take Up Education Appeals” and “Justices May Not Reach Merits of Age-Bias Case.”

“Could it be Satan? Scalia says yes.” Michael McGough has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Judge Diane Wood on the Patent System”: The IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law has posted on YouTube the video of Seventh Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood‘s recent remarks at this link.

I previously linked to the prepared text of those remarks in a post you can access here.

“Kansas murder, EPA cases go before U.S. Supreme Court; Overturning of death-row gunman’s conviction in sheriff slaying under review”: The Topeka Capital-Journal has this report.

“The man who would take U.S.A. v. Apple to the Supreme Court: Meet Ted Boutrous, the lawyer handling Apple’s appeal of the e-book antitrust verdict.” Philip Elmer-DeWitt has this blog post online today at Fortune.

“Supreme Court: Is new campaign finance case another ‘Citizens United’? Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments Tuesday over whether certain limits on individuals’ campaign contributions are justified in the wake of the Citizens United decision.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Roberts: The ‘swing’ justice of election law.” Law professor Joshua A. Douglas has this essay online at Reuters.

“A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage: How banning gay marriage encourages big-government thinking.” A. Barton Hinkle has this essay online at Reason.

“Appeals Courts Give Misbehaving Prosecutors The Privilege Of Anonymity”: Radley Balko has this essay online at The Huffington Post.

“‘No. No. Not That I Know Of.’ The Scalia interview reveals his remarkable isolation from anyone who doesn’t agree with him.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Federal Rules at 75”: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review will be hosting this symposium next month.

In posts of interest from “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “No Hearings Postponed As D.C. Circuit Presses On.”

And Todd Ruger has a post titled “Shutdown Delays Judicial Confirmation Process.”

“A Preview Of The U.S. Supreme Court’s Fall Term”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of WAMU 88.5 American University Radio’s “The Diane Rehm Show.”

“The Supremes Take On the Toxic Avenger: Carol Anne Bond was convicted of trying to poison her husband’s lover; Now she’s a symbol of government overreach.” Pema Levy has this article online at Newsweek.

“A Blockbuster Supreme Court Term: There’s no shortage of significant cases on the docket this year.” Law professor Jonathan H. Adler has this essay today at National Review Online.

Sixth Circuit Library Twitter feed, we hardly knew ya! Sadly, but not unexpectedly, it appears that the Sixth Circuit Library Twitter feed has met an early demise.

“Slew of environmental cases sets up ‘incredibly high-profile term'”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“High court weighs limits on campaign contributions”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel holds that a federal habeas statute deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims for damages of a former Guantanamo Bay enemy combatant detainee: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Hamad v. Gates at this link.

“Court considers ending Stanford Ponzi scheme suits”: The Associated Press has this report.

Update: In other coverage, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Stanford Suits Questioned in High Court Securities Clash.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79.

“Argument recap: A bad way to open a Term.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Madigan v. Levin, No. 12-872.

“Eroding the checks on campaign contributions”: Columnist Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has this op-ed.

“Inquisitive Justices? No Argument There.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

According to Liptak, “A team of researchers led by Ryan A. Malphurs * * * found that the court reporters who insert the ‘[laughter]’ notations into transcripts are a tough crowd and had overlooked countless instances of courtroom levity.”

In Volume 10, Issue 2 of Communication Law Review, Malphurs had an article titled “‘People Did Sometimes Stick Things in my Underwear’: The Function of Laughter at the U.S. Supreme Court.” Being the law geek that I am, I am pleased to report that I correctly remembered it was Justice Stephen G. Breyer who uttered the quote found in the title of the Malphurs article.