“European court is not superior to UK supreme court, says Lord Judge; Former lord chief justice says law should be changed to make it clear British courts do not have to implement Strasbourg rulings”: Owen Bowcott of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Paying Amy: Doyle Paroline owned two pornographic pictures of an 8-year-old girl; How much should he have to pay?” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A grounded frequent flier complains all the way to the Supreme Court”: Michael McGough has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“High court hears medical-marijuana case”: The Miami Herald has a report that begins, “Tallahassee’s political establishment has repeatedly blocked legislative votes on medical marijuana and will ask the Florida Supreme Court Thursday to follow suit and keep the issue away from state voters in 2014.”

Access online the audio of today’s Federal Circuit oral argument in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has posted the audio online at this link (20.4MB mp3 audio file).

Earlier today, I had this post linking to news coverage of the oral argument.

“Dismissing Speech Claims, Justices Turn to Plain Line-Drawing”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court justices say military-base protester’s case isn’t about free speech.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court case pits free speech against military property rights; A peace activist challenges the military’s authority to ban him from protesting on part of Vandenberg Air Force Base used by the public; The justices appear to side with the military.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Supreme Court Weighs War-Protester Case; Air Force Argues It Is Authorized to Keep Dennis Apel Off Highway That Runs Through Military Property.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court weighs protests at military installations.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has an article headlined “Did man protest too close for military’s — and Supreme Court’s — comfort?”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices hear protester’s appeal over speech rights on government easements.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Military protester faces uphill battle in Supreme Court.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court looks at protest ban at Calif. military base.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Military Protester Finds Skeptical Audience At Supreme Court.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Skirting a constitutional issue.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Apel, No. 12-1038.

“Study: California Supreme Court conflict-of-interest rules most open in nation.” Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this report.

My earlier coverage of today’s report from The Center for Public Integrity can be accessed here.

“The Court’s Contempt for Congress”: Jeff Shesol has this blog post online today at The New Yorker.

“Court Upholds Firing of Counselor Who Wrote Sexually Explicit Advice Book”: At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has this post reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“If Obamacare is overturned, a Case Western law professor gets the credit”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this provocatively headlined article.

“U.S. court questions Google defense against Oracle over Android”: Dan Levine of Reuters has this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Oracle Seeks to Revive Claim Google’s Android Copied Code.”

In today’s mail: I received the Spring 2013 issue of The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process.

The issue contains a very interesting essay by Senior First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez titled “”To Lobby or Not to Lobby: That Is an Important Question.” Unfortunately, the essay does not appear to be readily available online.

Cert. alert: Today, the majority on a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued an opinion that begins, “Five other circuits have held that an immigration judge violates due process or the immigration laws by relying on a State Department investigation of an asylum petitioner’s claim. Do we fall in line?”

Being the Ninth Circuit, the majority of course answered “no.” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the majority opinion.

Second Circuit affirms summary judgment dismissing ConEd’s suit against those who designed, built, operated, and maintained the 7 World Trade Center Building alleging that defendants’ negligence cause the building to collapse following the 9/11 attacks: You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “US court: Negligence not cause of 3rd WTC collapse.”

“Supreme Court seems unlikely to uphold frequent-flier’s suit; A Minneapolis rabbi sued Northwest Airlines for canceling his ‘platinum’ frequent-flier status after his many complaints; Justices, citing a 1978 deregulation act, express skepticism about his claim”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports today that “U.S. Supreme Court cool to Minn. man booted from WorldPerks for complaining.”

The New York Daily News has an article headlined “Airline dumped rabbi from perks program saying he complained too much — U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on legality; Rabbi Binyomin Ginsberg attained ‘Platinum Elite’ status in the now-defunct Northwest Airlines’ WorldPerks program in 2005 only to have it revoked when he allegedly complained too much; Ginsberg says he was just offering feedback.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court appears split over frequent flyer case.”

“McCombs, partner lose in Supreme Court”: The San Antonio Express-News has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “McCombs Partnership Tax-Shelter Penalty Upheld by Court.”

Reuters reports that “US Supreme Court rules Texas billionaire owes tax shelter penalty.”

And at Forbes.com, Ashlea Ebeling has a post titled “Supreme Court Sides With IRS In Tax Shelter Penalty Case.”

“The Greatest Trick The Supreme Court Ever Pulled Was Convincing The World Roe v. Wade Still Exists”: Ian Millhiser and Tara Culp-Ressler have this essay online today at ThinkProgress.

“Justice Obscured: In a nine-month investigation, the Center for Public Integrity evaluated the financial disclosure rules for judges in the highest state courts nationwide.” The Center for Public Integrity posted this report online today.

The report contains an article headlined “State supreme court judges reveal scant financial information; Investigation reveals conflicts despite limited disclosure.”

And the report also includes additional items titled “Justices ruled on their own financial interests”; “Methodology: how we graded state supreme court financial disclosure“: and “State report cards.”

“Supreme Court Takes on Free Speech Case of Often-Arrested Protester”: Ariane de Vogue has this post today at “The Note” blog of ABC News.

“Obamacare Suits Mount as Notre Dame Joins Scrum of Cases”: Bloomberg News has this report.

And in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall has an article headlined “Federal Judge Hears Arguments on Health-Law Subsidies; Group Contests Key Part of Affordable Care Act.”

“Easton Area School District files arguments for U.S. Supreme Court review in ‘boobies’ case; Easton district argues appeals court misapplied landmark rulings on student speech”: Peter Hall has this article today in The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania.