“Gay marriage fight pits Texas AG vs. gay friend”: The Associated Press has this very interesting report.

“After Video Surfaces, Supreme Court Reviews Screening Procedures”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

The post explains: “One possibility is that whoever took the videos did so with a pen camera that could evade detection, since spectators are allowed to take pens into the court and take notes.”

“Argument preview: Measuring mental handicap.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

Ninth Circuit grants rehearing en banc in case asking whether the Constitution permits a six-figure punitive damage award in a sexual harassment suit where the jury awarded no compensatory damages and only one dollar in nominal damages: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

My coverage of the original partially divided three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

Update: In other coverage, at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Court Reconsiders Limits on Punitive Damages.”

“Supreme Court Case May Stop States That Still Execute Mentally Disabled: The justices banned execution of mentally disabled people in 2002; Now they are poised to tell death penalty states that they really meant it.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Group Behind SCOTUS Video Speaks Out: ‘We Are Not Going To Sit Silently.'” This morning, Mike Sacks of HuffPost Live interviewed Kai Newkirk. You can view the video of the interview at this link.

“Sprague motion: Lower court tardy, so yank case.” In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Joseph A. Slobodzian has an article that begins, “In what experts are calling an extraordinary legal gambit, Philadelphia lawyer Richard A. Sprague is asking the state Supreme Court to yank a case from the hands of three lower-court judges for taking too long to rule.”

According to the publicly available appellate court docket sheets in the case (see here and here), the appeal was argued before a three-judge panel of the Pa. Superior Court on January 15, 2013, and thus it has been awaiting decision for approximately 13-and-a-half months. The docket sheet for the newly filed Pa. Supreme Court application for relief can be accessed here.

Because the Pa. Supreme Court itself frequently takes longer than just over a year from oral argument to decide cases pending before it, perhaps Pennsylvania’s highest court will not be particularly astounded that the Superior Court is similarly taking that long to decide what I assume must be a rather complicated case.

Google and YouTube seek stay of Ninth Circuit’s takedown order pending disposition of upcoming petition for rehearing en banc in “Innocence of Muslims” case: I have posted the request for a stay, filed late yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, at this link.

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

“Rare Supreme Court Outburst Caught on Even Rarer Videos”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And at “the first casualty” blog, Victoria Kwan has a post titled “Identifying the Clandestine Videos of Supreme Court Oral Arguments Posted Online.”

My coverage from earlier today can be accessed here.

“Concealed-weapons ruling challenged”: The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update that begins, “Attorney General Kamala Harris announced Thursday she has challenged a federal court ruling in a San Diego County case that made it easier for Californians to carry concealed weapons.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “State attorney general moves to preserve concealed-gun limits.”

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Attorney general to challenge ruling on concealed weapons.”

Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined “Attorney General Kamala Harris appeals federal court’s concealed-handgun ruling.”

The Associated Press reports that “California challenges concealed weapons ruling.”

Reuters reports that “California’s attorney general takes up court fight over gun laws.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “AG to Appeal Concealed Weapons Decision.”

Today, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California issued a news release titled “Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Appeals Ninth Circuit Concealed Weapons Permit Ruling.” You can view the State of California’s proposed petition for rehearing en banc at this link. I use the word “proposed,” because California has sought to intervene in the appeal, and its request to intevene must be granted before California will be entitled to seek rehearing en banc.

“Post-Filibuster, Obama Faces New Anger Over Judicial Choices”: Carl Hulse will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Evidence of Concealed Jailhouse Deal Raises Questions About a Texas Execution”: John Schwartz will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Religious liberty vs. civil rights: A balancing act; States and courts increasingly must sort out the rights of those exercising their religion against gay men and lesbians who may be adversely affected.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And in Friday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Nagourney will have a news analysis headlined “Arizona Bill Allowing Refusal of Service to Gays Stirred Alarm in the G.O.P.”

“States’ Wrongs: Conservatives’ illogical, inconsistent effort to repeal the 17th Amendment.” Law professor David Schleicher has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“In Its ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Ruling, the Ninth Circuit is Guilty of Judicial Activism”: Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman have this post today at the “Technology & Marketing Law Blog.”

How does a member of the general public sneak a video recording device into a U.S. Supreme Court oral argument? Apparently C-SPAN and others who favor televising the U.S. Supreme Court have been unnecessarily overlooking the self-help remedy, as the YouTube user “SCOTUSpwned” has now posted several oral argument video clips, with that user’s most-viewed video focusing on yesterday’s protester disruption at the Court.

Update: At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin have a post titled “Unprecedented Video Captures High Court Chamber Protest Footage.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Unauthorized video of Supreme Court protest posted online.”

The Associated Press reports that “YouTube video purports to show high court action.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Secret Video of U.S. Supreme Court Session Shows Outburst.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court secretly recorded on camera.”

Ninth Circuit rules that high school administrators did not violate the First Amendment by barring students from coming to school on Cinco de Mayo with shirts containing the American flag: You can access today’s unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

In October 2013, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reported on the oral argument of this appeal in an article headlined “American flag ban: Federal appeals court struggles with Morgan Hill school’s Cinco de Mayo incident.”

In March 2012, David Hudson Jr. of The First Amendment Center had a report titled “Students appeal ruling in American-flag T-shirt case.”

And the Student Press Law Center reporting on the trial court’s ruling, affirmed today, in a report titled “Judge sides with Calif. school that told students to take off American flag shirts; Students plan to appeal.”

The Rutherford Institute linked to the students’ Brief for Appellants in a news release titled “Rutherford Institute Asks Ninth Circuit to Protect Right of Calif. Students to Wear American Flag T-Shirts to School, Declare Flag Ban Unconstitutional.”

Update: In early coverage of today’s ruling, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “American flag removal order justified, U.S. court rules in Morgan Hill case.”

And at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “School’s Ban on U.S. Flag Shirts on Cinco de Mayo Upheld.”

“A Supreme Court Patent Case Comes Down to a War of Adjectives”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Diane Bartz of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court considers the ‘patent troll’ problem.”

And Susan Decker and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Patent Fees Weighed in Supreme Court Case Watched by Apple.”

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184 (access the transcript at this link) and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., No. 12-1163 (access the transcript at this link).

“Investor Class Actions Seen at Risk in Halliburton Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“U.S. high court sets record for intellectual property caseload”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Republicans flip-flop on ‘judicial activism'”: Columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has this essay.

“Google ordered to take anti-Muslim video off its platforms; Federal appeals court rules ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video may have violated copyright laws of actress and orders Google to take it down”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “YouTube ordered to pull anti-Muslim film.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Google ordered to take down YouTube anti-Muslim video.”

The Washington Times reports that “YouTube ordered to remove anti-Muslim film.”

Jonathan Stempel and Dan Levine of Reuters report that “Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube.”

The Associated Press reports that “YouTube ordered to take down anti-Muslim film.”

CNN.com reports that “Google ordered to remove anti-Muslim film from YouTube.”

The “Bits” blog of The New York Times has a post titled “Federal Court Orders YouTube to Take Down Controversial Anti-Islam Video.”

The Verge reports that “YouTube must take down explosive ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video in copyright suit.”

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has posts titled “‘Innocence of Muslims’ Actress Scores Huge Victory at Appeals Court; Google now facing liability for refusing to remove the controversial anti-Islamic film from YouTube” and “Secret ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Order Caused Google to Go Ballistic; The search giant had advance warning of what was coming and made an emergency motion slamming an appeals court for doing something it says was ‘stunning.’”

At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Court Says YouTube Must Remove Anti-Muslim Film.”

And the “Deeplinks” blog of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a post titled “Bad Facts, Really Bad Law: Court Orders Google to Censor Controversial Video Based on Spurious Copyright Claim.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the majority opinion.

“Ruling against Texas’ gay marriage ban may set up Supreme Court fight; A federal judge rejects Texas’ ban on gay marriage; The latest ruling in a conservative state may move the issue closer to the Supreme Court”: Molly Hennessy-Fiske of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “US judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban as ‘state-imposed inequality’; Texas is the fourth conservative state since December to have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage struck down by a federal judge, joining Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia.”

“Justices Rule Against Man Over a Zone for Protests”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes and William Branigin of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules against antiwar protester.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sides with military in Vandenberg protest case.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says Pentagon can bar protesters; Federal law permits the military to expel previously banned protesters, regardless of their First Amendment rights.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court rules against protester at military base.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules against protester at air force base.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Protester loses appeal in military protest case.”

At “The Note” blog of ABC News, Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Anti-War Protester Suffers A Supreme Court Loss.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Setting military boundaries.”

You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling today in United States v. Apel, No. 12-1038, at this link.

“Supreme Court Permits Investor Lawsuits in Stanford Fraud”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Ponzi scheme investors can sue in state courts; Because what they bought were not ‘covered securities,’ investors’ claims are not blocked by federal jurisdiction over securities fraud class actions.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Stanford Fraud Suits by Investors Allowed by High Court.”

The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court allows Stanford Ponzi scheme suits.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court OKs investor lawsuits in Ponzi scheme case.”

And Nina Totenberg of NPR has a report headlined “Supreme Court Allows Stanford Ponzi Scheme Suits To Go Forward.”

You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling today in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79, at this link.

“‘Ground zero’ for the death penalty”: Tal Kopan of Politico.com has this report today.

“Supreme Court spectator interrupts justices”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

“Apple urges U.S. appeals court to void ‘radical’ e-books ruling”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

Bloomberg News reports that “Apple Argues Ignorance in E-Books Antitrust Ruling Appeal.”

The Associated Press reports that “Apple files appeal in e-book antitrust case.”

Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica has a report headlined “Apple e-book appeal: Higher new release prices boosted competition; Antitrust laws aren’t supposed to ‘keep prices down at any cost,’ Apple says.”

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Christopher M. Matthews has a post titled “Apple Asks Appeals Court to Toss Antitrust Ruling.”

The Hill has a blog post titled “Apple files appeal of ‘radical’ antitrust ruling.”

You can access the opening brief for appellant that Apple Inc. filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Baseball Umpires Show Bias and Mercy”: Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Cass R. Sunstein today has an essay that begins, “In his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, the aspiring chief justice, John Roberts, offered a memorable analogy: ‘Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.'”

“The Big, Bad Freeze: The Supreme Court just made it easier for the government to take your assets before you even go to trial.” Chanakya Sethi has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Federal judge voids Texas’ gay marriage ban, though he delays order from taking effect immediately”: The Dallas Morning News has this update.

The Houston Chronicle has a news update headlined “Texas’ ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional.”

The Texas Tribune reports that “Judge Rules Texas’ Gay Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional.”

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas’ Ban on Same-Sex Marriage.”

The Associated Press reports that “Texas gay marriage ban latest to be struck down.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Gay-Marriage Ban Held Illegal as Judge Delays Order.”

Reuters reports that “Judge rules Texas same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Texas ban on same-sex marriage nullified.”

“Argentina Takes Its Debt Case to the U.S. Supreme Court”: Law professor Steven M. Davidoff has this post at the “Dealbook” blog of The New York Times.

“Fight Over Who Will Take Marriage Equality To The Supreme Court Breaks Out Into The Open; Legal advocacy groups and big-name lawyers all want to be the ones who bring their case to the Supreme Court in order to argue for nationwide marriage equality”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed has this report.

“Minority Aspirants To Federal Bench Are Hindered By Underrating”: This audio segment appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

And at msnbc, Adam Serwer has a report headlined “GOP court blockage ‘unprecedented.’”

“Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes Senate Bill 1062”: The Arizona Republic has a news update that begins, “Facing intense pressure from political and business interests and a growing public outcry, Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday that she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062, the divisive right to refuse service legislation.”

Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Brewer vetoes SB 1062, Arizona’s contentious religious rights bill.”

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays.”

The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Arizona governor vetoes religious freedom bill.”