“The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Thomas, establishing the risk-contribution theory of liability for lead pigment claims, does not violate the Due Process, Takings, or interstate-commerce Clauses of the Constitution.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a very interesting opinion issued today.

“Appeals Court Allows Farmers To Keep Feeding Unnecessary Antibiotics To Animals”: The blog “Consumerist” has this post on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

Update: In early news coverage, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. court upholds FDA animal feed policy despite health concern.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Ruling on antibiotics in livestock reversed.”

“NYU Law mourns the death of criminal law scholar Dan Markel”: The New York University School of Law issued this news release yesterday.

“Grim Details Emerge in FSU Professor’s Shooting Death”: The ABC News program Good Morning America has this report today.

The written article accompanying the video begins, “A criminal law professor at Florida State University gunned down at his home was shot in the side of the head at relatively close range, ABC News has exclusively learned.”

“Obamacare Has a Scary Day in Court”: Law professor Noah Feldman recently had this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“The disturbing lessons of Arizona’s un-American execution; Our government seems more intent on executing criminals than on ensuring such executions are humane”: Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Week.

“Progressives learn the hard way that the Constitution is obstructionist”: Online at The Washington Post, Charles Lane has an op-ed that begins, “President Obama’s plan to transform the U.S. health-care market is once again in trouble. This time, two Republican-appointed judges on a federal appeals court have invalidated a key portion of the program.”

“With All Due Deference: Ruling Defends Affirmative Action From New Challenges.” Online at The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has an essay that begins, “Given the avalanche of world-shaking news since last week, the shrug greeting the latest chapter in the long-running affirmative action saga at the University of Texas is understandable.”

“Bolstered by Ruling, Republicans Attack Health Law”: Robert Pear will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

And Abby Goodnough will have an article headlined “Court Ruling On Health Care Subsidies Risks Loss of Coverage.”

“Prosecutors Snooping on Legal Mail”: This editorial will appear in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

“A conservative judiciary run amok”: Columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has this op-ed online at The Washington Post.

Online at Vox, Sarah Kliff has an essay titled “Halbig says Congress meant to limit subsidies; Congress disagrees.”

And today at his “Walshslaw” blog, law professor Kevin C. Walsh has a post titled “The judicial character of Chief Justice Roberts and the difference between the ACA subsidies and individual mandate cases.”

“Sex Offender Has Case Over Residency Ban”: Courthouse News Service has an article that begins, “A Texas man can sue a Dallas-area suburb over the constitutionality of its ban on registered sex offenders living within 1,500 feet of children, the 5th Circuit ruled.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Executions should be by firing squad, federal appeals court judge says”: In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan will have an article that begins, “Days before an Arizona murderer gasped and snorted for more than 90 minutes and died nearly two hours after his execution began, a conservative federal appeals judge called for replacing lethal injection with firing squads, saying the public must acknowledge that executions are ‘brutal, savage events.'”

In related coverage, in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times, Erik Eckholm will have an article headlined “Arizona Takes Nearly 2 Hours to Execute Inmate.”

And The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Arizona inmate dies belatedly in apparently botched execution.”

“If Judges Campaign Like Ordinary Politicians, Can We Have Impartial Courts?” Dorothy J. Samuels has this post today at the “Taking Note” blog of The New York Times.

“Prempro Lawyers Double Money in $62 Million Fee Fight”: Jef Feeley of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Arizona inmate dies 2 hours after execution began”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A condemned Arizona inmate gasped and snorted for more than an hour and a half during his execution Wednesday before he died in an episode sure to add to the scrutiny surrounding the death penalty in the U.S.”

Michael Kiefer and Mariana Dale of The Arizona Republic has a news update headlined “Execution of Arizona murderer takes nearly 2 hours.”

And The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Execution of Tucson killer takes 2 hours.”

“Arizona high court delays planned execution”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Arizona’s highest court on Wednesday temporarily halted the execution of a condemned inmate so it could consider a last-minute appeal.”

Michael Kiefer of The Arizona Republic has a news update headlined “Arizona court puts last-minute hold on execution.”

And The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Tucson killer’s execution delayed.”

Update: A revised AP report issued at 2:48 p.m. eastern time states that Arizona’s highest court has lifted its stay of execution.

“Police looking to identify car in Markel case”: Sean Rossman of The Tallahassee Democrat has this news update.

“Gunman targeted, killed top Florida State University law professor: police.” The New York Daily News has this report.

“Reining in ObamaCare — and the President: Halbig v. Burwell is about determining whether the president, like an autocrat, can levy taxes on his own.” Law professor Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

You can freely access the full text of the op-ed via Google.

“Bad Readers: The judges who ruled against Obamacare are following Scalia down a terrible path of interpretation.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — today has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“How to Beat Hobby Lobby: Can the states force companies to cover birth control for their employees?” Daniel Townsend has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“Judges in health care rulings vote party line”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Latest Obamacare legal knot won’t be easy to untangle”: David Ingram of Reuters has this report.

“Prosecutors Are Reading Emails From Inmates to Lawyers”: This front page article will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times. According to the article, “across the country, federal prosecutors have begun reading prisoners’ emails to lawyers.”

“Obama’s Health Care Law Has A Confusing Day In Court”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.” In addition, Mara Liasson had an audio segment titled “Obamacare’s Split Decisions Spell Law’s Possible Return To Supreme Court.”

And in commentary, Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an editorial titled “An Ominous Health Care Ruling.”

Online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay titled “Obamacare Is Safe: Don’t worry, the ruling against heath care subsidies is going to be reversed.” And David Weigel has an essay titled “Did Conservatives Just Win a Leninist Victory Over Obamacare?”

Online at Vox, Ezra Klein has an essay titled “No, the Halbig case isn’t going to destroy Obamacare.”

Online at The New Republic, Brian Beutler has an essay titled “This Shamefully Dishonest Obamacare Ruling Could Blow Up in the GOP’s Face.”

At Politico Magazine, law professor Abbe R. Gluck has an essay titled “What the D.C. Circuit Got Wrong About Obamacare.”

Online at The Daily Beast, Michael Tomasky has an essay titled “Conservatives Find Typo In Obamacare, Try To Kill People With It.”

Online at Ricochet, law professor Richard Epstein has an essay titled “Understanding the Obamacare Subsidy Rulings.”

At National Review Online, Ian Tuttle has an essay titled “Halbig Goes Nuclear: If Tuesday’s ruling is overturned, blame Harry Reid.” And at “The Corner” blog, Hans A. von Spakovsky has a post titled “Obamacare’s Almost Surely Going Back to the Supreme Court“; law professor John Yoo has a post titled “Halbig Could Be Chief Justice Roberts’s Chance to Redeem Himself“; and Andrew C. McCarthy has a post titled “Halbig Is Not About a ‘Drafting Error.’”

“What the Hobby Lobby Ruling Means for America”: Binyamin Appelbaum will have this “It’s the Economy” essay in this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine.

“Stanford’s Mariano-Florentino Cuellar tapped for California Supreme Court; Cuellar has been nominated to serve as an associate justice of the California Supreme Court; He is the director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a professor at the law school”: Stanford News has this report.

“Colorado AG loses another round from Court of Appeals on TABOR lawsuit”: The Denver Post has a news update that begins, “Attorney General John Suthers has lost his request to have the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rehear a decision by a court panel that ruled Coloradans have a right to challenge the constitutionality of the Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the three dissents therefrom, at this link.

“How Obama’s court strategy may help save Obamacare”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a report that begins, “Last fall, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid deployed the ‘nuclear option’ to help get three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit appeals court. Tuesday’s ruling on Obamacare is a dramatic example of why they forced the issue.”

And Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies; But second court backs administration on key part of law.”

“Execution in Arizona Is Approved by Justices”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

And Michael Kiefer of The Arizona Republic has a news update headlined “Supreme Court lifts stay of Arizona execution; Joseph Wood will be executed by lethal injection on Wednesday in Florence.”

Having sex on desks is apparently very popular among employees of at least one Indiana prison: So suggests the opening paragraph of an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“7th Circuit splits on arrestee booking fees”: Chicago Daily Law Bulletin has a report that begins, “People forced to pay $30 to the village of Woodridge following their arrest won’t be getting their money back — at least, not any time soon. Splintering four ways after a rare en banc hearing, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance that imposed a non-refundable booking fee on anyone arrested in the village.”

You can access yesterday’s 55-page en banc non-decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court allows Arizona execution to proceed”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed an Arizona execution to go forward amid a closely watched First Amendment fight over the secrecy surrounding lethal injection drugs in the country.”

You can access this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits.” So observes Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook in an interesting statutory construction decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.