Fifth Circuit decides part two of religious message candy cane case — Dad loses too: You can access today’s per curiam ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, accompanied by two concurring opinions, at this link.

“John Roberts Shows He Has No Idea How Money Works in Politics”: Sam Kleiner has this essay online at The New Republic.

And at National Review Online, Bradley A. Smith has an essay titled “Free Speech at Last: McCutcheon Decision Just Right; Individual speech saved from infringements.”

“Early Warning”: Online at The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has an essay that begins, “Someone at the Supreme Court got an assignment last week: start drafting a majority opinion to answer the question whether a for-profit company can claim a religious exemption from the federal requirement to include particular products in any employee insurance plan.”

“Legal fight over dead gay man’s estate: his mom, 75, vs. his husband.” The Birmingham News has a report that begins, “The Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery has announced that it is now representing the mother of a gay man who is fighting for her son’s property rights — against his husband.”

“I Fought the Law and I Won: Why today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for free speech.” Shaun McCutcheon has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

And in local coverage, The Birmingham News reports that “National reaction mixed on Hoover man’s campaign finance victory at U.S. Supreme Court.”

In jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has an essay titled “Justice Roberts Hearts Billionaires: The chief either doesn’t believe, or doesn’t care, that money corrupts politics.”

And Emily Bazelon has a post titled “The Devastating, Sneaky Genius of John Roberts’ Opinions: His McCutcheon decision pretends to be mild but then wrecks what remains of campaign-finance law.”

“Big donors may give even more under court’s ruling”: The Associated Press has this report, along with a report headlined “White House ‘disappointed’ in donor limit ruling.”

“State Supreme Court won’t hear Sandusky appeal”: The Centre Daily Times of State College, Pennsylvania has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Pennsylvania high court won’t hear Sandusky appeal.”

You can access today’s order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denying allowance of appeal at this link.

“Hobby Lobby 401(k) invests in birth control makers”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report. My earlier coverage can be accessed here.

“Lawyers: The purpose of marriage is procreation.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing.”

You can access the step-three reply brief for appellant/brief for cross-appellee filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.

“Arizona Ordered Not to Enforce Abortion Law During Appeal”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Supreme Court rules for airline in frequent flyer dispute”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Airlines Backed by U.S. High Court on Passengers’ Suits.”

“Die Another Day: The Supreme Court takes a big step closer to gutting the last bits of campaign finance reform.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

On the internet, everyone can know that your dog’s a sports fan: Patents for football and baseball jerseys for dogs are the subject of a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“Opinion analysis: Freeing more political money.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Caps on Total Campaign Giving Voided by U.S. High Court.”

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court lifts overall limits on congressional campaign donations.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits; In 5-4 Ruling, Majority Says Such Caps Violate the First Amendment.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations; The decision represents another step toward easing decades-old restrictions on political contributions that were designed to combat corruption.”

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court strikes down overall limit on campaign giving.”

“Fifth Third case goes to U.S. Supreme Court”: Dan Horn of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in two argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 12-462. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Alito joined in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 12-536. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court voids overall contribution limits” and “High court limits suits over frequent flier miles.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes aggregate donations caps in federal elections.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Supreme Court Voids Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits.”

And at his “Suits & Sentences” blog, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has a post titled “Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign limits on individuals, opening political taps.”

“Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers; When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare’s contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.” Molly Redden had this report online yesterday at Mother Jones.