“What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?” In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, law professor Robert Smith and G. Ben Cohen have an op-ed that begins, “Should a fisherman face two decades in prison for discarding a few fish at sea? That question is at the core of a statutory interpretation case the Supreme Court heard in November, but it also raises another question: What does ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ mean today?”

“No gay marriage in Miss. during appeals process”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Same-sex marriages delayed in Mississippi.”

You can access today’s stay ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granting a stay at this link.

“Noah Feldman on ‘Madison and Frankfurter: Friends, Enemies, and the Meaning of the Constitution'”: Harvard Law School recently posted this video on YouTube (via Harvard Law Today).

“Those non-random appellate panels? Study finds they’re (almost) everywhere.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

Frankel’s article reports on a paper that law professors Adam S. Chilton and Marin K. Levy have posted online at SSRN titled “Challenging the Randomness of Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals.”

“Judge: Give NSA unlimited access to digital data.” Grant Gross of PCWorld has a report that begins, “The U.S. National Security Agency should have an unlimited ability to collect digital information in the name of protecting the country against terrorism and other threats, an influential federal judge said during a debate on privacy.”

The judge in question is Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner.

“Trademarks: Let the Jury Decide.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211.

“President Obama And The Courts: A Shift In Balance.” This audio segment featuring Jeffrey Toobin appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Fresh Air.”

“Ericsson v D-Link: Standards, Patents, and Damages.” Jason Rantanen has this post at “Patently-O” discussing a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“The Ninth Circuit and the right to carry guns: Hello again, Peruta.” Eugene Volokh has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Judges: This chimp is no man.” Robert Gavin of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this news update.

Reuters has a report headlined “Chimps have no human rights: N.Y. court.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “NY court: Chimps don’t have same rights as humans.”

You can access today’s ruling of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, at this link.

“UPS Suit Hinges on an Ambiguous Pregnancy Law”: 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 “Supreme Court hears arguments in pregnant UPS worker’s case.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court acknowledges ambiguity in pregnant workers law.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Pregnancy discrimination claim faces high-court hurdle.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall has an article headlined “Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Workplace Pregnancy-Rights Case; Case Examines Whether UPS Violated Pregnant Worker’s Rights by Not Accommodating Her Lifting Restrictions.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Pregnant workers’ rights: Supreme Court takes up UPS driver’s case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices grapple with UPS pregnancy discrimination case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: ‘As compared to what?’”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, No. 12-1226.