“41 years after Roe v. Wade, abortion foes undaunted; In annual report, National Right to Life Committee applauds antiabortion measures in states, and takes the long view on getting measures through Congress and before the Supreme Court”: Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court asked to review Delaware’s ‘secret trials’ case”: Tom Hals of Reuters has this report.

“The New Aaron Swartz Documentary at Sundance”: Tim Wu has this blog post online today at The New Yorker.

“Texas Prepares to Execute Mexican Despite Concerns That His Arrest Violated Law”: Manny Fernandez will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Disarming the White House”: Norman J. Ornstein will have this op-ed about the pending U.S. Supreme Court recess appointment case in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Justices Appear Divided On a Sweeping Challenge To Public Workers’ Unions”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court considers major change in public employee unions.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court considers striking down mandatory public union dues.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices hear case threatening public employee unions; An effort by home-care workers to opt out of union representation threatens the labor movement.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “High Court Considers Legality Of ‘Fair Share’ Union Fees.”

At Education Week’s “School Law” blog, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Weighs High-Stakes Case on Union Fees.”

At Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Supreme Court Debate: Are Public-Sector Unions Too Political?”

And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Case That Could Clobber Public-Sector Unions.”

“I’m hoping for a victory for crime victims’ rights tomorrow before the Supreme Court”: Paul Cassell has this post at “The (newly relocated) Volokh Conspiracy” about the case he will be arguing tomorrow at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Argument preview: Checking up on gun buyers.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Court: Jurors can’t be dismissed because of sexual orientation.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

“Citizens United, 4 years later”: Byron Tau of Politico.com has this report.

“Filibuster Challenge Meets Resistance in D.C. Circuit”: Todd Ruger has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

After waiting more than two years and four months, what’s one more day? The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania today decided the case that I described on September 13, 2013 — the two-year anniversary of my oral argument of the appeal — as “my oral argument toddler.”

Ordinarily, Pennsylvania’s highest court would post the decision online on the day of issuance. However, due to the big snowstorm affecting Philadelphia today, the court’s Philadelphia filing office closed at 2 p.m. today. Consequently, the opinion was not posted online today.

Here is what I currently know, thanks to the Pa. Supreme Court’s updated docket sheet in the case. The decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which was partially in favor of my client and partially in favor of the defendants, was affirmed in part and reversed in part. That disposition, however, can describe a large range of possible outcomes in the case. I also know that Justice Thomas G. Saylor wrote the majority opinion, in which Justices Max Baer, Debra McCloskey Todd, and Seamus P. McCaffery joined. Finally, I know that Justice J. Michael Eakin issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille joined.

The wait for a decision has ended. And the wait to learn the precise outcome of the case and what the court’s decision actually says has begun, starting midday today.

“‘Raging Bull’ on the ropes in copyright challenge; Justices’ decision will hinge on whether the daughter of a screenwriter waited too long to file her case”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Court Oks Excessive Credit Card Fees, Reluctantly”: At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Argument preview: Paying a price for child porn.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Justices weigh anonymous tips in traffic stops”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Pushing the hypotheticals.”

Update: In other coverage, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “In anonymous tips case, Supreme Court doesn’t tip its hand.”

“The Volokh Conspiracy joins The Washington Post”: You can access the press release at this link.

You can view the WaPo version of the VC by clicking here.

Update: An explanatory post from Eugene Volokh is titled “In Brazil, you can always find the Amazon — in America, the Amazon finds you.”

Contrary to my initial comment, above, there is no WaPo version of the VC — rather, only the WaPo version will exist going forward. In addition, the VC after six months will exist “behind the Post’s rather permeable paywall.”

“U.S. justices referee ‘Raging Bull’ copyright fight”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., No. 12-1315.

Update: In other coverage, Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Justices hear appeal over ‘Raging Bull.’”

“State victories create dilemma for abortion foes”: The Associated Press has this report.

“The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” opts to become more difficult to access. Mike Scarcella has the announcement at this link.

Heading in the opposite direction, as previously reported, WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” recently decided to make itself much more accessible by entirely dropping its paywall.

Lest anyone be concerned, the “How Appealing” blog’s agreement with law.com ensures that this blog will remain freely accessible to all who have internet access.

“Va. Supreme Court declines to rehear Virginia Tech shooting case; The ruling effectively ends the case in the state court system”: The Roanoke Times has this news update.

“Argument recap: Public employee unionism under fire.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court debates union fees for nonunion workers.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Union Fees Debated in Supreme Court Case Over Labor Power.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Harris v. Quinn, No. 11-681.

“This appeal’s central question is whether equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in jury selection.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered “yes” in a decision issued today.

Update: In early news coverage, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has a report headlined “Gay bias in jury selection: federal appeals court forbids barring gays and lesbians from jury service.”

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Court says prospective jurors can’t be removed because they are gay.”

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “Exclusion of gay juror forces new U.S. trial between GSK, Abbott.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Gay juror was taken off panel improperly.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports that “Federal Appeals Court Says Jurors Can’t Be Excluded Because They Are Gay.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Sexual Orientation No Basis to Block Jurors.”

“Apple gets temporary reprieve from e-books monitor”: Reuters has this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Apple Wins Temporary Delay on U.S. E-Books Monitor.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted its Order List at this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court upholds Hawaii reapportionment” and “High court stays out of Conn. layoff case.”

Bloomberg News reports that “SAP Rejected by Supreme Court Over $391 Million Loss.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court declines to hear $345 million SAP AG patent appeal.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Hawaii redistricting upheld.”

“Harris v. Quinn: The Context of First Amendment Claims.” Benjamin Sachs has this post at the blog “On Labor,” whose entire home page is devoted to the case right now.

“What Happens to the Death Penalty When Lethal Injection Isn’t Quick and Painless?” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

“India top court commutes 15 death sentences over ‘delay'”: BBC News has this report.

“Supreme Court battle over what child pornography viewer owes victim”: Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times has this report.

“Court questions judge’s travel expenses; Former top judge of federal appeals court faces Justice Department investigation”: Dan Horn has this article today in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

You can access this blog’s earlier related posts here, here, and here.

“Supreme Court to hear 1st Amendment challenge to labor unions; Chicago-area in-home care providers will ask justices to reconsider a union practice that requires workers to pay dues”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “A Union For Home Health Aides Brings New Questions To Supreme Court.”