“Coming soon: Supreme Court ruling on Michigan’s affirmative action ban in college admissions.” Kellie Woodhouse of AnnArbor.com has this report today.

“Wal-Mart Wins Dismissal of Texas Women’s Class Action”: Back in October 2012, Margaret Cronin Fisk of Bloomberg News had a report that begins, “Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, doesn’t have to face class-action gender-discrimination claims in a federal court lawsuit in Texas, a judge ruled.”

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing the lawsuit’s dismissal.

“Supreme Court Justices Give Software Patents A Pass, Zero In On Business Methods”: Daniel Fisher has this post at Forbes.com.

And at “Patently-O,” Dennis Crouch has a blog post titled “Unpatentable: See Bilski, Mayo, Flook, and Benson.”

“Senate Confirms John B. Owens to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”: The Public Information office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release.

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Finally, Trott Seat Filled, Owens Confirmed to Circuit.”

You can access today’s U.S. Senate official roll call vote tally, confirming the nomination by a vote of 56-to-43, at this link. Currently, the Ninth Circuit has 28 active judges and only one vacancy.

“Observer: Panel on Utah gay marriage case ‘slightly’ conservative.” Brooke Adams of The Salt Lake Tribune has this news update.

The article refers to my “20 questions for the appellate judge” interview with Tenth Circuit Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

And in other coverage, The Deseret News has an update headlined “Appeals court assigns 3 judges to hear Utah same-sex marriage case.”

“US appeals ruling to let lawyers see secret files”: The Associated Press has this report on the federal government’s brief for appellant filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Affirmative action non-action still causing waves in Sacramento; Senate measure on affirmative action ban in public education was shelved, but friction among Democrats over the fallout lingers”: This front page article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Supreme Court Seems Wary of a Software Patent Case”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Divided 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel reinstates excessive use of force claim against two Anaheim police officers who used deadly force against the driver of a minivan: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

In earlier coverage of the original divided three-judge panel’s ruling, Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times had an article headlined “Federal court rules Anaheim officers didn’t use excessive force; A divided U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the two officers didn’t use excessive force in a 2009 incident in which a suspect was fatally shot.”

Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, who dissented from the three-judge panel’s ruling, wrote the majority opinion for the en banc panel.

Update: In other coverage, Courthouse News Service reports that “Lethal-Force Case Divides En Banc 9th Circuit.”

“Supreme Court could limit software patents”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court considers patent protections for software.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298.

“Health Caring: Obamacare and the poor.” Jeffrey Toobin has this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the April 7, 2014 issue of The New Yorker.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted the Order List at this link. The Court granted review in one new case.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court takes up drug company dispute” and “Court rejects new cases on birth control coverage.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices agree to hear Teva’s Copaxone appeal“; “U.S. top court declines to hear new contraception cases“; and “U.S. top court declines to hear patent case on glaucoma drug.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on patent appeals.”

“U.S. top court considers patent protections for software”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News have a report headlined “Edison Echoed as U.S. Court Looks at Software Patents.”

“The Senate’s Discourtesy to Judges”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Missouri is among the states where hope is rising on death row”: Tony Rizzo of The Kansas City Star has this report.

“Supreme Court Steps Into Software-Patent Debate; Microsoft, Google Weigh In on Issue That Has Flummoxed Federal Judiciary”: Ashby Jones will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

“Supreme Court Decision Could Mean More Ad Lawsuits; High Court Weighs in on Lanham Act”: Advertising Age has this report.

“My Reverse-Cyrano Moment Wooing the Supreme Court”: P.J. O’Rourke has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

“NCAA Says Northwestern Union Case Will Wind Up in Supreme Court”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “The National Labor Relations Board ruling allowing Northwestern University’s football team to become the first college sports union will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, NCAA President Mark Emmert said.”

“Fun With Corporate Conscience Clauses”: Brian McFadden has this cartoon in the Sunday Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Software patents worth billions come before high court”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial titled “Abstract Ideas Don’t Deserve Patents.”

“Dignity Is a Constitutional Principle”: In the Sunday Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Bruce Ackerman has an essay that begins, “With gay marriage litigation moving forward at warp speed — federal judges have struck down five state bans on same-sex marriage since December — we may soon witness one of the worst shouting matches in Supreme Court history.”

Just like calling balls and strikes: In the Sunday Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, Brayden King and Jerry Kim have an essay titled “What Umpires Get Wrong.”

“Death Row Inmates Challenging Lethal Injections”: Kenneth Jost has this post today at his blog, “Jost On Justice.”

“The inside story of MIT and Aaron Swartz: More than a year after Swartz killed himself rather than face prosecution, questions about MIT’s handling of the hacking case persist.” Marcella Bombardieri has this lengthy front page article today in The Boston Globe.

“Backers of same-sex marriage ban file briefs in appeal”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report.

You can view the brief for appellant filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Slowing the Patent Trolls”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Robin Feldman has an op-ed that begins, “On Monday the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in perhaps the most important intellectual property case in a decade: Alice v. CLS Bank.”

“New York town awaits ruling on moment of prayer”: The Associated Press has this report.

In Garcia v. Google Inc., Google and YouTube have filed their response in opposition to Garcia’s emergency motion for contempt: You can access the companies’ response at this link.

This past Wednesday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ordered Google and YouTube to file a response to the contempt motion within 72 hours of that order.

Because the 72-hour period would expire today, on a Saturday, I took a look at Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(2) (a subsection of the rule governing the computation of time titled “Period Stated in Hours” applicable both to the appellate rules and to appellate court orders) to confirm whether the actual deadline for the response would be today (literally 72 hours after the entry of the Ninth Circuit’s order) or whether the deadline would be extended until Monday.

Rule 26(a)(2) states (paragraph breaks omitted): “Period Stated in Hours. When the period is stated in hours: (A) begin counting immediately on the occurrence of the event that triggers the period; (B) count every hour, including hours during intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays; and (C) if the period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the same time on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”

As I read the text of Rule 26(a)(2), if the 72-hour period expired at 2 p.m. today, Google and YouTube would have had until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 31, 2014 to timely file their response. That would appear to be the plain meaning of the text of Rule 26(a)(2), and nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s order directing a response made Rule 26(a)(2) inapplicable to computing the time afforded under the order within which to file a response.

Nevertheless, erring on the side of caution, Google and YouTube decided to file their response before the 72-hour period expired, even though Rule 26(a)(2) appears to have allowed them until some point on Monday to file a timely response.

“What’s the Best Way to Execute Someone? Doctors say lethal injection is often botched and horrific.” Matt McCarthy has this essay online at Slate.

“Justice Department won’t prosecute Boyce Martin”: The Louisville Courier-Journal has a news update that begins, “A spokeswoman for retired U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. says the Justice Department has completed an investigation of his travel expenses and won’t be prosecuting him.”

“U.S. bypasses Korematsu plea”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“In new case, Supreme Court revisits the question of software patents”: Timothy B. Lee has this report online at The Washington Post.

“Same-sex divorce appeal could reach Nebraska Supreme Court”: The Omaha World-Herald has a news update that begins, “A Raymond, Neb., woman’s bid to divorce her wife is raising a challenge to Nebraska’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.”

“Fifth Circuit Paves Way for Supreme Court Showdown on Chemical Abortion Regulations”: Mailee R. Smith has this post today at National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog.