“Tax penalty for two Texans? Supreme Court weighs partner problem.” Reuters has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Woods, No. 12-562.

“Schuette: Supreme Court likely to uphold Mich. affirmative action ban.” The Detroit News has this update.

“On campaign contributions, don’t split the baby, Mr. Chief Justice”: Michael McGough has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Blacks lack presence on federal appellate court”: Leslie Proll, the director of the D.C. Office at NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., has this op-ed in The Miami Herald.

“Miami Herald reporter sues Pentagon to learn costs at Guantanamo’s Camp 7”: Mark Seibel of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report.

“Baby Veronica case: Biological father to have press conference Thursday.” The Tulsa World has this news update.

“Supreme Court won’t hear suit over drug dog; Case cited ‘unlawful search and seizure’ at Central High School”: Today’s edition of The Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader contains a front page article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an ‘unlawful search and seizure’ case that started three years ago with a drug dog visiting a Central High School classroom.”

“Missouri returning execution drug to supplier”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this news update.

“The Supreme Court is poised to legalize corruption”: Columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has this op-ed.

“Arguments next week go on”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The Virtue of Obscurity”: Law professor Colin P. Starger has posted this essay online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

The essay’s abstract begins, “The critics have panned Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor.”

“Oops! Email deriding Nebraska Supreme Court accidentally sent to chief justice.” This article appears today in The Omaha World-Herald.

“With New Abortion Restrictions, Ohio Walks Fine Line”: Erik Eckholm will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court And Campaign Finance Limits, Again: The High Court and blowing the lid off campaign contributions.” That was the title of the first hour of today’s broadcast of NPR’s “On Point with Tom Ashbrook.” You can access the audio via this link.

Ninth Circuit orders plaintiffs to respond to Google’s petition for panel or en banc rehearing in lawsuit accusing Google of violating federal wiretap law while building its popular Street View program: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The response is due October 30th.

Google’s rehearing petition can be accessed here.

And my earlier coverage of the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Siblings dissatisfied with each other’s methods of child rearing must find a means other than federal litigation to address their differences.” So explains Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook in an opinion he issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Merit selection among topics covered by retired Supreme Court Justice O’Connor in ‘fireside chat’ at Roger Williams law”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal and The Associated Press have this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court to weigh penalty on sham tax shelter”: Reuters has this report.

“Does Justice Scalia Really Believe He’s on the ‘Losing Side of Everything’? By comparing himself with a New Deal obstructionist, the conservative judge raises questions about the Court’s future — and his own legacy.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Supreme Court at a crossroads on campaign funding limits; Justices appear divided in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, which could lift limits on giving directly to candidates”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Campaign Funding Divides High Court; Justices Split Over Whether Political Contributions Could Be Capped; Roberts Looks for Middle Ground.”

The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court skeptical of campaign finance cap; Case could let individuals give to more candidates, parties.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Campaign finance limits sharply divide Supreme Court. Is there middle ground?”

Joan Biskupic of Reuters has an article headlined “Kagan, now in a robe, argues again for campaign finance limits.”

At the ABC News blog “The Note,” Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Conservative Supreme Court Justices Question Campaign Contribution Limits.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Justices Weigh Campaign Finance in Case Watched by Teachers’ Unions.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Weighs Easing Limits On Campaign Contributions.”

“Pennsylvania digs in against Supreme Court, fights to prohibit gay marriage”: The Washington Times has this report.

“SB 1070 takes another hit”: In today’s edition of The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled Arizona cannot enforce yet another provision of its controversial 2010 law aimed at illegal immigration.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Arizona Criminal Law on Undocumented Alien Transport Void.”

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

“NY court weighs ‘too intoxicated’ murder defense”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Three people convicted of murder in deadly crashes urged New York’s highest court Tuesday to throw out their convictions, arguing they were too intoxicated to know the threat they posed to others.”

The Staten Island Advance reports that “Staten Island woman seeks to overturn murder conviction, claims she was too high to know she was acting recklessly.”

Newsday reports that “Martin Heidgen DWI case debated by state court.”

And the Times Union of Albany, New York has an article headlined “Too drunk to murder? Lawyers say clients too drunk to be depraved, so not guilty of murder.”