“Gay Marriage Ruling Is Conservative, and Wrong”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

And online at The Detroit Free Press, David H. Gans has an essay titled “Will of the majority doesn’t trump the Constitution.”

“U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Florida Commercial Fishing Cases — Part 2”: Today at the blog “Florida Appellate Review,” Dan Bushell has a post that begins, “The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to step in to resolve a long-running dispute between Florida and Georgia.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has a redesigned web site: You can access the redesigned site at this link.

Update: I have a suggested improvement to the opinions page — displaying the date of the opinion’s issuance in addition to the docket number, case name, and designation as published or unpublished.

“The Legal One Per Cent”: Jeffrey Toobin has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Indiana Supreme Court upholds ‘right to work’ law”: Tim Evans and Tony Cook of The Indianapolis Star have this news update.

The Evansville Courier & Press has a news update headlined “Indiana Supreme Court upholds ‘Right to Work’ law.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “In defeat for unions, Indiana’s top court upholds right-to-work law.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Indiana Supreme Court Upholds State’s Right-to-Work Law.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Indiana at this link.

“Brooklyn Prosecutor Could Be Nominated Attorney General In Coming Days”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“A Scary Sign the Supreme Court Could Be Taking the Latest Obamacare Suit Seriously”: Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.

And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Republicans’ First Order Of Business May Be Chipping Away At Obamacare.”

“What’s Wrong With the Sixth Circuit Ruling Against A Constitutional Right to SSM”: Michael Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

And at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whelan has a post titled “Sixth Circuit Rules in Favor of State Marriage Laws.”

“Federal Appeals Court Upholds State Gay Marriage Bans”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

Fiona Ortiz and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Appeals court upholds gay marriage bans, reversing trend.”

Andrew Harris and Margaret Cronin Fisk of Bloomberg News report that “Gay Marriage Right Rejected by Appeals Court in U.S. Midwest.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have a news update headlined “Appeals Court Upholds Marriage Restrictions In Four States; Split Renews Possibility Of Supreme Court Review.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Gay marriage bans upheld in four states, snapping same-sex win streak; Federal appeals court backs Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio traditional marriage laws.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Appeals court upholds gay marriage bans, Supreme Court showdown looms; The Sixth Circuit became the first federal appeals court to uphold a ban on gay marriage, greatly increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court will step in.”

Jim Provance of The Toledo Blade has a news update headlined “U.S. appeals court upholds anti-gay marriage laws; Federal appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer has a news update headlined “Court: No same-sex marriage in OH, KY.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a news update headlined “Federal appeals court rules against same-sex marriage in 2-1 decision; reverses judges who overturned state bans.”

The Tennessean has a news update headlined “Gay couples in Tennessee ‘devastated’ by court ruling.”

The Lexington Herald-Leader has a news update headlined “Appeals court upholds Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage, reversing lower court.”

The Detroit Free Press has a news update headlined “Appeals court upholds Michigan’s gay marriage ban.”

MLive.com has reports headlined “Michigan gay marriage ban upheld by appeals court“; “Appeals court says gay marriage legalization appears inevitable, but upholds Michigan ban“; “LGBT community plans ballot initiative after same-sex marriage court ruling“; “Michigan Gov. Snyder says defending gay marriage ban a duty, ‘not a matter of personal preference‘”; “Gay marriage ruling: Woman who wants to wed calls federal judges ‘cowards’“: “Hazel Park couple on gay marriage ruling: We will continue to fight“; “Barb Byrum, 1st county clerk to marry a Michigan gay couple, ‘speechless’ at court decision“; “Midland pastor ‘appalled’ by appeals court decision upholding gay marriage ban“; “Court’s upholding gay marriage ban is ‘crazy, disappointing,’ says pastor who conducted Muskegon marriages“; “‘We don’t want to be the last place justice is denied,’ gay rights activist says marriage equality fight not over“; “Gay marriage ban co-author Gary Glenn praises federal court ruling“; and “Dave Agema, gay-marriage opponents on ruling: ‘Things are looking up for conservatives.’”

And at the “Taking Note” blog of The New York Times, Jesse Wegman has a post titled “The Wrong Question to Ask About Same-Sex Marriage.”

“Federal appeals court rules for gay marriage bans” The Associated Press has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Appeals court upholds bans on same-sex marriage in four states.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “For first time, a federal appeals court upholds ban on gay marriage.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Gay marriage bans in four states upheld on appeal.”

Erik Eckholm of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Appeals Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban.”

The Detroit News has an update headlined “Fed appeals court rules for gay marriage ban in Mich.”

The Columbus Dispatch has a news update headlined “Ohio’s gay-marriage ban upheld.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal has a news update headlined “Appeals court upholds Ky gay marriage ban.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports that “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Four States’ Same-Sex Marriage Bans.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Sixth Circuit: The split on same-sex marriage.”

You can access this afternoon’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link. Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Deborah L. Cook joined. Senior Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey issued a dissenting opinion.

The Sixth Circuit currently has 15 active judges, five of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents and 10 of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Although the party affiliation of the appointing president has not proved to perfectly correlate with a judge’s views on this issue, the math would seem to be against those who may hope that possible en banc review may resolve the circuit split that today’s ruling has created. In the absence of an en banc decision that overturn’s today’s three-judge panel ruling, U.S. Supreme Court review would now appear to be assured.

“Author: Sotomayor Still Feels Pressure to Prove Herself.” Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this Supreme Court Brief consisting of an interesting interview with Joan Biskupic. You can freely access the full text of the interview via Google.

“NCAA has to go to trial over Penn State sanctions, court rules”: The Associated Press has this report.

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consisted of a per curiam order and a concurring statement.

“Why James Duff Agreed to Administer the Federal Judiciary — Again.” Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this Supreme Court Brief. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

“Constitution Check: Will the new Senate approve any nominees to the Supreme Court?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

In papers of interest available online at SSRN: Law professors Michael J. Gerhardt and Michael Ashley Stein have posted an article titled “The Politics of Early Justice, Lower Court Federal Judicial Selection 1789-1861” (via “Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog“).

And law professor Mitchell N. Berman has posted a book review titled “Judge Posner’s Simple Law” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“After Harry Reid, the GOP Shouldn’t Unilaterally Disarm: It will take years to undo the damage done by Senate Democrats’ barring filibusters of judicial nominees.” U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and C. Boyden Gray 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.

Thanks Dad! Today, the Supreme Court of Washington State issued a unanimous opinion that begins:

After Theresa Scanlan filed a personal injury action against Karlin Townsend, a process server delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Townsend’s father at his home. But Townsend did not live at her father’s home. Townsend’s father later handed the summons and complaint directly to Townsend within the statute of limitations.

The trial court had dismissed the case due to lack of service on the defendant, but the intermediate appellate court reversed and ruled that service was proper. Today. Washington State’s highest court agrees with the intermediate appellate court that proper service of process occurred.

Strong start to a dissenting opinion: Yesterday, Fifth Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly issued a dissenting opinion that begins:

With due respect, it is difficult to determine which feature of the majority’s opinion is more stunning: that it finds standing on the basis of a new theory of law that has not been so much as hinted at, much less urged, by the plaintiff in this case; or that this “delayed-notice” theory of injury on which it finds standing is so utterly unsupported by law or fact.

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

“Justices Consider Whether Tossing Out Fish Destroyed Records”: 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 “Justices consider the case of the missing grouper.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices seeing red over case of missing grouper.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall has an article headlined “Supreme Court Objects to Application of Sarbanes-Oxley on Commercial Fisherman; Florida Fisherman Accused of Destroying Evidence That He Harvested Undersized Fish.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Avast ye Supreme Court justices, thar be an undersized grouper!”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Justices think use of anti-corporate fraud law sounds ‘fishy.’”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices leaning toward letting fisherman off the hook.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices debate whether feds went overboard in fisherman prosecution.”

At “The Note” blog of ABC News, Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Supreme Court Hears Fishy Tale.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “How Does Destroying Fish Compare To Shredding Documents, Legally?”

Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire reports that “Justices question use of Sarbanes-Oxley to prosecute Fla. fisherman.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch headlined “Scales of Justice: The Supreme Court has more fun than ought to be legal arguing about shrimpy grouper.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Building to a Scalia crescendo.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Yates v. United States, No. 13-7451.

“Castille to Kane: Release all the justices’ e-mails.” Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis have this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Today’s edition of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania contains an article headlined “Lawyers, civil right groups ask Attorney General Kathleen Kane to study email traffic between Pa. Supreme Court, her office.”

And Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reports that “Ethics experts say justices’ emails to AG’s office warrant review” and “Pa. legal experts call on Castille, Kane to release justices’ email.”

“If Dems Can Nuke Filibuster For Judges, GOP Can Nuke It For ObamaCare (And Still Save Senate)”: Michael F. Cannon has this post at Forbes.com.

“Supreme Court Solution: A Senior Citizen.” Jonathan Bernstein has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Even Crazier in Alabama: Voters just passed a constitutional amendment that would overrule the Supreme Court.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And in local coverage, AL.com reports that “Amendment banning ‘foreign law’ in Alabama courts passes; will be added to Alabama Constitution.”

“Recount possible in NC Supreme Court race”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has an article that begins, “Despite an effort by the Republican State Leadership Committee to influence the Supreme Court races in North Carolina, the three candidates targeted by the organization emerged as victors. Democrats Cheri Beasley, Sam Ervin IV and Robin Hudson won their races for seats on the bench of the state’s highest court.”

“What Happened in the 2014 State Judicial Races? The results in several contested races could provide a small amount of solace to Democrats.” Governing.com has this report.