“Despite Supreme Court victory, wrecked houseboat’s owner still fighting”: The South Florida Sun Sentinel has a news update that begins, “Despite his huge win at the nation’s highest court over a year ago, Fane Lozman says he has little to show for it.”

“Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them”: Brian Woodward has this article at Red Dirt Report.

“Facebook rapper seeks Supreme Court appeal in threats case”: Peter Hall will have this article in Saturday’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania.

“State’s high court halts release of execution drug information”: The Houston Chronicle has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Texas Supreme Court halts release of drug supplier.”

You can access today’s stay order of the Supreme Court of Texas at this link.

“Voter rights groups appeal documentation ruling”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Voting rights groups filed an appeal Friday of a judge’s order that federal election officials must help Kansas and Arizona enforce state laws requiring new voters to provide documentation proving their U.S. citizenship.”

“Supreme Court Preview: Just Add Computer? SCOTUS Processes ‘Computer-Implemented’ Inventions.” Tom P. Taylor of Bloomberg BNA has this blog post.

“U.S. college, athletes wanting to unionize face long battle”: Amanda Becker of Reuters has this report.

“First Amendment protects Internet search results: N.Y. judge.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report on a ruling that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued yesterday.

“Newport says it will fight group home decision; City plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court after a lower court decided that bias was involved in the treatment of sober-living facilities”: The Daily Pilot of Costa Mesa, California has this report.

“Go to the Supreme Court, win $25,000!” The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster (Pa.) New Era has an article that begins, “The East Earl owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. on Thursday received a $25,000 Heritage Foundation prize for taking their religious liberty fight to the Supreme Court.”

Access online the audio of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: Available via this link.

And you can access directly the audio of Tuesday’s oral argument in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354, by clicking here.

Know your cuts of meat: Fans of this Late Show with David Letterman sketch may enjoy an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

In early coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court rules in favor of meat labels.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Court rejects challenge to meat label rule.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Meat Groups Lose Bid to Block Country-of-Origin Labeling.”

“Godless Libertarians Find Their Religion”: Steven Mazie has this post at his “Praxis” blog.

And at Reason.com, Jacob Sullum has an essay titled “Free Birth Control and Unfree Photographers; Dubious rights threaten true liberty.”

“Supreme Court to decide when ideas become too ‘abstract’ to patent; The case could make it harder to patent ‘computer-implemented’ business methods, including software; Google, Facebook, Macy’s, and Twitter beg the Court to do so; yet IBM disagrees”: Roger Parloff of Fortune has this report.

“Centuries Haven’t Yet Set Bank’s Jurisdiction”: Tim Hull of Courthouse News Service has a report that begins, “For purposes of jurisdiction, Wells Fargo is a citizen of South Dakota, not California, the 9th Circuit ruled Thursday, lamenting that such questions remain unsettled after more than century.”

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.

“Four of Five Blacks Excused from Jury Pool OK”: At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has this post reporting on the ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford) on the Hobby Lobby arguments”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The Establishment Clause: An Interview with Judge Guido Calabresi.” Marie Griffith has this post at the “Religion & Politics” blog (via “Religion Clause“).

“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.