“The Early Jurisprudence of Justice Sotomayor: Sonia Sotomayor’s first five years on the Court.” The Yale Law Journal Forum today has posted this online symposium.

Access online the supplemental authority letters filed following last week’s Third Circuit oral argument in United States v. Auernheimer: The federal government’s letter, filed last Thursday, can be accessed here.

And the defendant/appellant’s response, filed today, can be accessed here.

“U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Health Trust suit”: Mark Guydish of The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania has this news update.

Unless the losing parties seek review in the International Court of Justice at The Hague, it would now appear that my client’s appellate victory in this case is secure.

In this earlier post reporting on the Pa. Supreme Court‘s denial of review in the case, I linked to my client’s appellate filings. The U.S. Supreme Court‘s docket entries in the case can be accessed here.

Update: In other coverage, The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre reports that “Supreme Court tosses Pittston, Dallas petition against health trust.”

“Supreme Court Declines to Revive Delaware Arbitration Program; Lower Courts Held That Allowing Sitting Judges to Rule in Private Proceedings Was Unconstitutional”: Brent Kendall and Peg Brickley will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Health-Law Contraceptive Case Skews Ideological Lines on High Court; Conservatives Cite Legal Doctrine Written by Late Liberal Champion Brennan”: Jess Bravin will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

And Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico.com reports that “Contraception coverage heads to SCOTUS.”

“‘No Plans to Change’ High Court Access Policies”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Conservatives defend Marc Nadon, slam Supreme Court’s timing; Justice Minister Peter MacKay says the government, ‘surprised’ by the court’s rejection of its appointment of Nadon, is reviewing its options”: The Toronto Star has this report.

“Baton Rouge’s definition of ‘family’ weighed by Louisiana Supreme Court”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update.

“Sandra Day O’Connor tells Stockton audience of her road to the Supreme Court”: The Atlantic City Press has this news update.

“Contraception Ruling Could Have Reach Far Beyond Women’s Rights”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Online at The New Republic, Tom Donnelly has an essay titled “Can Liberals Trust John Roberts to Rescue Obamacare Again? A pro-Hobby Lobby ruling would be his most radical decision.”

And at Salon.com, Brian Beutler has an essay titled “Right-wing judges face huge moral dilemma: How Hobby Lobby could expose SCOTUS’ hypocrisy; The coming case will test what’s more sacred to this court: Corporate imperatives or so-called religious liberties.”

“The Religious Right’s Failed Gay-Marriage Backlash: In states like Arizona, social conservatives hoped to push back against the rising gay-rights tide, but lawmakers and the public sided against them.” Molly Ball has this essay online at The Atlantic.

In jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Naomi Lamoreaux and William Novak have an essay titled “Getting the History Right: Tracking the real history of corporate rights in American constitutional thought.”

And Margaux J. Hall has an essay titled “Who’s the Boss? Why are our employers making our health insurance choices in the first place?”

“Sacred and Profane: Where the Waco siege went wrong.” Malcolm Gladwell has this Annals of Religion article in the March 31, 2014 issue of The New Yorker.

“Humor and Other Rarities Emerge in a Case About Lying”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“US Supreme Court rejects Del. appeal on secret panel”: Sean O’Sullivan of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware has this update.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Delaware Court Arbitrations Blocked as Appeal Rejected.”

Tom Hals of Reuters reports that “Delaware loses final bid to revive ‘secret courts.’”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “SCOTUS lets court access ruling stand.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Arbitration with public spectators? Maybe . . .”

In the April 2014 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Low-tech high court to weigh police search of smartphones.”

Lorelei Laird has an article headlined “SCOTUS ruling could complicate laws on impaired driving.”

And the new installment of Bryan A. Garner’s “On Words” column is headlined “Ax these terms from your legal writing.”

Programming note: Due to a late-morning meeting with trial counsel in an appeal I will be working on, additional posts will not appear here until mid-afternoon.

“Everything You Need To Know About The Supreme Court Taking On Birth Control”: Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report today.

And at “ThinkProgress,” Ian Millhiser has a post titled “Read This One Document To Understand What The Christian Right Hopes To Gain From Hobby Lobby.”

“Supreme Court Preview: Do IRA’s Experience Life After Death?” Tom P. Taylor of Bloomberg BNA has this blog post on the case scheduled for oral argument this morning at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And last week at “SCOTUSblog,” Ronald Mann had a post titled “Argument preview: Scope of protections for retirement funds in bankruptcy squarely at issue.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted today’s Order List at this link. The Court granted review in one case, and the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices deny Del. court appeal over secrecy” and “Supreme Court declines to hear sex registry case.”

“White House weighs next nuclear option”: Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico.com today has a report that begins, “Pressure is continuing to mount in President Barack Obama’s base — and within his own White House — to push for a new nuclear option for judicial nominees.”

“Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more; The Supreme Court will hear Hobby Lobby’s religious liberty challenge to Obamacare on Tuesday; Its decision could have far-reaching consequences”: David G. Savage has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Affordable Care Act and birth control: Can corporations assert religious rights? The US Supreme Court this week takes up a key question regarding the Affordable Care Act: Can businesses deny employees certain birth control methods based on religious beliefs?”

The Tulsa World reports that “Hobby Lobby contraception case set to go before Supreme Court this week; At issue is whether a corporation can claim religious freedom the same as individuals.”

The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster (Pa.) New Era has an article headlined “Business and religion collide in Conestoga Woods Supreme Court contraceptive coverage case.”

NewsWorks.org has a report headlined “Lancaster business takes Affordable Care Act challenge to U.S. Supreme Court this week.”

And at Forbes.com, Dale Buss has a post titled “Conestoga Is Silent Party In Obamacare Case, But Convictions Are Clear.”

“ObamaCare’s Latest Legal Challenge: Can the White House simply declare that the federal government is the 51st state?” Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain this editorial about a case scheduled for oral argument Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“High court with vocally devout justices set to hear religious objections to health-care law”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post. In addition, Walter Dellinger will have an op-ed titled “Contraception as a test of equality.”

And in Monday’s edition of The Washington Times, Tom Howell Jr. will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to weigh religious rights of corporations vs. Obamacare’s ‘contraception mandate.’”

“Sperm donor asks Supreme Court to block his genetic testing; Motion filed at last minute Friday in 2012 case”: In yesterday’s edition of The Topeka Capital-Journal, Steve Fry had an article that begins, “Just before the 5 p.m. deadline on Friday, the attorney representing a Topeka man who provided sperm to a same-sex couple to become pregnant filed an appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court asking justices to direct a district court judge to block genetic testing of the man.”

“Legal questions abound over same-sex marriages in Michigan”: The Detroit Free Press has this news update.

“N.J. chief justice could fall victim to political tides”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Conservatives won’t rule out another attempt to reappoint Nadon”: In Monday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine will have an article that begins, “The Conservative government is refusing to close the door to reappointing Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, a move that would pit the government against the country’s top judges.”

“Supreme Court’s Obsession With Secrecy”: Kenneth Jost has this post today at his blog, “Jost On Justice.”

“Tennessee plans executions in secret”: Brian Haas has this front page article today in The Tennessean.

“What Judge Friedman learned about gay families from a lesbian law clerk”: Columnist Brian Dickerson has this essay in today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press.

“The Trouble with Amicus Facts”: Law professor Alli Orr Larsen has posted this article online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Review: ‘Anita’ revisits the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas drama; In the documentary ‘Anita,’ Anita Hill, central figure in the ’91 Senate hearings to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas, candidly speaks of the grueling trial she endured to tell her truth.” Kenneth Turan, film critic for The Los Angeles Times, has this movie review.

In Friday’s edition of The New York Times, Miriam Bale had a movie review headlined “Alone Then, Supported Today: ‘Anita’ Revisits the Clarence Thomas Hearings.”

David Lewis of The San Francisco Chronicle has a review headlined “‘Anita’ review: Clunky film with a moving message.”

Alan Scherstuhl of OC Weekly has a movie review headlined “Speaking Truth to the Choir: This Anita Hill Doc Doesn’t Bother Making a Case.”

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of the A.V. Club has a review headlined “The documentary Anita reduces the Anita Hill story to one of generic uplift.”

And Odie Henderson of RogerEbert.com has this review of the movie.

Claire Suddath of Bloomberg Businessweek has an article headlined “New Anita Hill Film Recalls When Sexual Harassment Went Mainstream.”

Chris O’Falt of The Hollywood Reporter has an article headlined “Anita Hill on the ‘Surreal’ Hearings That Changed Her Life and the Country.”

Doug Oakley of The Oakland Tribune has an article headlined “New film on Anita Hill revisits landmark sexual harassment saga.”

The Brandeis Hoot has an article headlined “Anita Hill opens up about power dynamics in documentary ‘Anita.’”

The Daily Californian reports that “Anita Hill documentary recalls past for present gender equity fight.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a blog post titled “‘All These Issues Are Still With Us’: Talking to Anita Hill, as truthful as ever.”

And at The Huffington Post, Natasha Bach has a report headlined “Anita Hill: Joe Biden Botched The Clarence Thomas Hearings.”

“Alabama Supreme Court upholds decision to toss ‘birther’ lawsuit, Chief Justice Roy Moore dissents”: Brian Lawson of The Huntsville Times has this report on a per curiam order of affirmance, accompanied by two concurring opinions and a 57-page dissent, that the Supreme Court of Alabama issued Friday.

“Justice Scalia Gave An Intriguing Non-Answer Question To A Question About NSA Spying”: Business Insider has this report.