“Court Panel Upholds Texas Law on Abortion”: Erik Eckholm will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules.”

“Aereo Tells Supreme Court Not to Kill ‘Next Technological Step’; The upstart TV streaming service makes its last written arguments before an oral hearing next month”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

And at “The Switch” blog of The Washington Post, Brian Fung has a blog entry titled “Aereo: Yes, we’re a Rube Goldberg device. And we’re proud of it.”

“NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune to fight ruling on disclosure of online commenter information”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

“US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules”: The Associated Press has this report on the ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

And in other coverage, The San Antonio Express-News has an update headlined “Texas abortion restrictions withstand legal challenge.”

“Appeals Court Could Reconsider Whether Anti-Gay Laws Get More Closely Scrutinized By Courts; A case that advocates thought was done could see another day in court”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed has this report on an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Defining a legal test for sexual orientation discrimination.”

Paul D. Clement stakes out latest controversial position — how to pronounce the “A” in Chick-fil-A: Clement is known as the darling of conservative litigating causes, and based on its founder‘s political views (and very tasty products) Chick-fil-A is a favorite eatery of many conservative chicken lovers (no, I don’t mean it that way).

Putting all that to one side, close behind the mystery of what foxes say is the vexing question, to quote Yahoo! Answers: “Do you pronounce it Chick-Fil-AY or Chick-Fil-uh?”

This past Tuesday evening’s broadcast of the PBS NewsHour contained a segment titled “Can corporations exercise religious rights? Supreme Court hears case on contraception coverage.” At approximately 2 minutes and 27 seconds into that video segment, Clement pronounces Chick-fil-A as “Chick-fil-uh.” With all due respect to my esteemed appellate colleague, the restaurant chain’s name is pronounced “chick-fi-lay,” because they are selling you a boneless piece of chicken.

In further support of my position, I respectfully refer readers to the Twitter postings of Chick-fil-A aficionado, and self-pronounced conservative Texas Supreme Court Justice, Don R. Willett (pronounced, for present purposes only, “will-lay”) here, here, and here.

Or, you could just watch this Chick-fil-A commercial on YouTube and see at the very end of the commercial how the announcer pronounces it.

“How Hobby Lobby Will Hurt Conservatives”: Columnist Steve Chapman has this op-ed today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Debt collector prevails in lawsuit tied to 2 words in Detroit”: The Associated Press has this report on an interesting ruling that Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Texas Judge Costa moves to full Senate vote”: Ben Kamisar of The Dallas Morning News has this blog post today.

“Cameras at the Supreme Court: They ought to be in pictures.” Steven Mazie has this post at The Economist’s “Democracy in America” blog.

“John Roberts Offers Conservatives A Way Out Of Birth Control Dilemma”: Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report.

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Hobby Lobby Verdict Could Be a Surprise.”

“Court: Horse Owners Need To Protect Public From Injury.” Edmund H. Mahony has this article today in The Hartford Courant.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Conn. court: Horse owners must prevent injuries.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Connecticut consisted of a majority opinion and a concurring opinion.

“State high court clarifies ruling in sex assault case”: Bruce Vielmetti has this article today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justices deadlocked in billionaire assault case.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin at this link.

The ruling that the court sought to clarify yesterday issued last July.

“U.S. in Odd Spot in Case on Protester Rights”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court leaning against anti-Bush demonstrators in free speech case.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Weighs Rights of Protesters, Secret Service; Protesters Say Their First Amendment Rights Were Violated During 2004 Presidential Campaign Event.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices side with Secret Service in discrimination case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Is Secret Service ‘above the law’? Supreme Court hears protest case; The Secret Service moved anti-Bush protesters behind pro-Bush protesters in 2004, citing a security concern; The plaintiffs charged discrimination in a case heard by the Supreme Court Wednesday.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices appear to back Secret Service in protest dispute.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “SCOTUS skeptical of anti-George W. Bush protesters.”

And on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Protesters Want To Sue Secret Service: Do They Have The Right?”

“Sweeping Ruling on Domestic Violence”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court bolsters domestic violence gun ban.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence; Justices strengthen a federal law that forbids anyone convicted of domestic violence from having a gun.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic violence.”

“Legal Debate on Using Boastful Rap Lyrics as a Smoking Gun”: This front page article appears today in The New York Times.

“Drexel appearance by Yoo draws flak”: The Philadelphia Daily News contains this article today.

“Supreme Court justice, wife sue Inquirer”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Yesterday, I had this post linking to other coverage and an online copy of the complaint filed in the case.