Videos of interest from the Federalist Society’s 2014 National Lawyers Convention: Via YouTube, you can access videos posted online today titled “Religious Liberty after Hobby Lobby“; “Diversity Jurisdiction from Strawbridge to CAFA“; and “Time to Revisit Chevron Deference?”

“U.S. wants another health care case put on hold”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Justice Pfeifer, who has lesbian daughter, says ‘world view has changed’; Justice says same-sex marriage language does not belong in Ohio Constitution”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Columbus Dispatch.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justice says gay daughter prompted ban reflection.”

“U.S. court rejects religious objection to Obamacare contraception deal”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Challenge to Obamacare on contraceptives rejected.”

Andrew Zajac of Bloomberg News reports that “Obamacare Contraceptive Rules Challenge Tossed by Court.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Appeals court upholds birth control mandate.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Yale, Harvard, Yale, Harvard, Yale, Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, Columbia: The thing that scares me most about the Supreme Court.” Dahlia Lithwick has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Ruling that voids Arizona’s ‘no bail’ law stands”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t overturn ruling on Arizona no-bail law.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Arizona ban on bail for immigrants falls.”

You can access at this link today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court denying a stay, and a statement respecting the denial of a stay that Justice Clarence Thomas issued, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined.

“Thomas hints at court split on gay marriage review”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Did two Justices vote to hear same-sex marriage cases?”

“Will the Supreme Court Mandate Gay Marriage?” Richard Socarides has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Naperville man convicted in stash house scheme gets new trial”: The Chicago Tribune has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered a new trial for a Naperville man who alleged he was goaded into a scheme to rob a phony drug stash house by overzealous federal agents.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Getting Too Close to Court Tarnishes Top Advocate”: Scott Graham of The Recorder had this article last week. You can freely access the full text of the order via Google.

This blog’s related earlier coverage can be accessed here.

Seventh Circuit panel holds that Freedom from Religion Foundation lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the parsonage exemption contained in the Internal Revenue Code: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“2014 National Lawyers Convention Opening with Justice Scalia”: The Federalist Society has posted on YouTube at this link the video of Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks this morning.

“Iowa’s Grassley is first non-lawyer to head Senate Judiciary Committee”: Timothy M. Phelps has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Why the 6th Circuit was wrong on marriage equality”: Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Orange County Register.

And at National Review Online, Hadley Arkes has an essay titled “Judge Sutton Buys Time; In the aftermath of the DeBoer decision, Congress must take the next steps,” while at the “Bench Memos” blog, Matthew J. Franck has a post titled “Judge Daughtrey’s Tantrum.”

“A Tinderbox of a Case”: Victoria Kwan has this post online at The Brooklyn Quarterly.

Kwan is also one of two people behind the “SCOTUS Map” Twitter feed, which is a must-follow for those who wish to keep up with the busy public appearance schedules of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

And because I’m in Dallas through the end of this weekend attending the AJEI Summit (at which Justice Antonin Scalia will be speaking), let me remind readers that frequently while I’m on the road appellate-related news will appear first on this blog’s Twitter feed before I get the chance to post it here.

“Blindfolds Off: Judges on How They Decide (In an Era of Discontent).” Yesterday, the National Constitution Center posted on YouTube the video of this recent panel discussion (via “Constitution Daily“).

“Judge in abortion case sat on Planned Parenthood board”: Today’s edition of The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an article that begins, “The federal judge assigned to handle Planned Parenthood’s challenge to an Ohio law threatening the closure of Cincinnati’s last abortion clinic served on the board of the family planning organization.”

“Constitution Check: Does the new Obamacare challenge have anything to do with the Constitution?” Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

And online at The New Republic, Yishai Schwartz has an essay titled “The Real Villains of the Obamacare Cases Aren’t the Judges — They’re the Lawyers.”

Access online the November 2014 issue of the Harvard Law Review: The issue focuses on last Term’s decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, and you can access the contents via this link.

The issue also includes “Essays in Honor of Justice Stephen G. Breyer,” commemorating his 20 years of service on the Court.

“Obamacare, back on trial: ‘Bumpy ride’ ahead if Supreme Court upends tax subsidies, professor says.” The Harvard Gazette has this report, featuring an interview with law professor Einer Elhauge.

“University of Texas Race Plan Appears Headed Back to U.S. Supreme Court”: Mark Walsh has this post today at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“Supreme Court hears arguments in Md. tax case”: The Baltimore Sun has this report.

The Washington Post has an article headlined “Md. to high court: State has a right to tax all out-of-state income to support local services.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall has an article headlined “Supreme Court Hears Arguments on States’ Income-Tax Rights; Debate Centers on Whether a State Can Tax Earnings Already Taxed by Another State.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court justices protest states’ double taxation.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court weighs state tax authority.”

Governing.com reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Questions Out-of-State Income Taxes; The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could cause localities across the country to lose millions in annual tax revenue.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s Chance to Cut Taxes.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, No. 13-485.

“Justices Hear Challenge to Alabama Redistricting”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Alabama minority redistricting case seems to divide Supreme Court.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court skeptical over racial gerrymandering claim from Alabama.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Considers Voting-Rights Case; At Issue Is Whether Creation of Predominantly Black Districts Limits Ability of White Democrats to Compete.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court weighs role of race in Alabama voter redistricting case.”

The Guardian (UK) reports that “Alabama Republicans get sympathetic hearing in gerrymandering case.”

Mary Troyan of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “Justices challenge Ala. Democrats in redistricting case.”

AL.com reports that “Plaintiffs in race-based challenge of Alabama’s redistricting face tough questions from justices.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court weighs role of race in Alabama redistricting.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Voting Clash Puts High Court Justices in Reversed Roles.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices weigh racially charged Alabama redistricting plan.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “At The Supreme Court, Tracing A Fine Line Between Politics And Race.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour contained a segment titled “Supreme Court considers line between racial and partisan gerrymandering.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Richard Hasen has a post titled “Argument analysis: Hitting the ‘sweet spot’ on race, party, and redistricting?”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895.

“Law in the Raw”: Online at The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has an essay that begins, “Nearly a week has gone by since the Supreme Court’s unexpected decision to enlist in the latest effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act, and the shock remains unabated.”

“N.J. man asks state Supreme Court to strike down law against cursing in front of children”: NJ.com has this report.

“Obamacare and gay marriage — the missing link”: Dale Carpenter has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Ask the author: Garrett Epps on clashing visions on the Court.” Ronald Collins has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Lets Gay Marriages Proceed in Kansas”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court allows same-sex marriages to proceed in Kansas, lifting stay.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in Kansas.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Clears Gay Marriage to Start in Kansas.”

The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court lifts hold on gay marriage in Kansas.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court lifts stay preventing same-sex marriage in Kansas; Clerks can issue licenses immediately.”

Brad Cooper of The Kansas City Star has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court clears same-sex marriage in Kansas.”

Bryan Lowry of The Wichita Eagle has a news update headlined “Supreme Court lifts hold on same-sex marriage in Kansas.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Same-sex marriages may go ahead in Kansas.”

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

“History gives clues to Chief Justice Roberts’ thinking on new Obamacare case”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen, author of the “Election Law Blog,” will have this op-ed in Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

And today at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a lengthy post titled “The test to textualism in King v. Burwell: A Reply to Abbe Gluck.”

“Google gets new hearing in ‘Innocence of Muslims’ copyright case”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “Appeals court will revisit order to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Google Gets Chance to Block Bit-Player Internet Removal.”

David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “Takedown of anti-Muslim YouTube video gets appeals court rehearing; Decision allows subjects of news coverage to veto ‘unflattering broadcasts.’”

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Ashby Jones has a post titled “Appeals Court to Take Another Look at ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Copyright Ruling.”

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Controversial ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Ruling to Be Reconsidered by Appellate Court; The case figures to re-explore the standards of joint authorship in Hollywood.”

National Journal reports that “Court Agrees to Reconsider Decision Over Benghazi-Linked Anti-Islam Video; A copyright claim on the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ will be reviewed by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Variety reports that “Appellate Court Will Rehear ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Case.”

And at Techdirt, Mike Masnick has a post titled “Appeals Court Finally Agrees To Rehear Horrible Ruling Over Actress’ Supposed Copyright In ‘Innocence Of Muslims.’”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

As I noted in this earlier post, Google and YouTube filed their petition for rehearing en banc on March 12, 2014. And, as I noted in this earlier post, on July 11, 2014, the original three-judge panel issued an amended opinion.

If the panel majority had hoped to avoid en banc rehearing by issuing an amended ruling, that hope was formally dashed today. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote the majority opinion for the panel, will conclude his statutorily prescribed seven-year term as the Ninth Circuit’s chief judge later this month. Although the chief judge, unless recused, is the one and only Ninth Circuit judge guaranteed to serve on every 11-judge en banc panel, when this case is reheard en banc, Kozinski will no longer be guaranteed a place on the en banc panel because he will then no longer be the chief judge. Thus, unless Kozinski is randomly assigned to the 11-judge panel, the panel’s decision to issue an amended decision could deprive Kozinski of being able to vote in favor of the outcome he believes to be correct in the en banc proceeding.

“Ruling clears way for concealed guns; Sheriff waiting until ruling becomes final before working to clear backlog of applications”: The San Diego Union-Tribune has this news update.

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Panel says state can’t intervene in concealed-weapon appeal.”

Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined “Concealed gun ruling stands: Foes can’t fight loosening of California permit standards.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t revisit concealed weapon permits case.”

You can access today’s order of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“D.C. Circuit steps aside on health care dispute”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog” reporting on an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

And in other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Obamacare case pulled from appeals court schedule.”

“Scalia invites criminal defendants to challenge SEC authority”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“President appoints Restrepo to U.S. Court of Appeals”: Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update that begins, “A federal judge who immigrated to the United States as a child and spent years as a public defender and civil rights lawyer in Philadelphia is President Obama’s latest pick to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.”

“Court backs UT in race-admissions case”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “Affirmative action could go back to Supreme Court.”

The Texas Tribune reports that “Appeals Court Denies Request to Rehear Fisher v. UT.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Fisher case on way back to the Court.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the dissent therefrom in which five judges joined, at this link.