“Supreme Court turns deaf ear to Gosnell”: Joseph A. Slobodzian had this article in yesterday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Bright celebrates autobiography, birthday”: Monday’s edition of The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, North Dakota contained an article that begins, “Judge Myron Bright had a lot to celebrate at his party on Sunday afternoon.”

“How big is the Supreme Court threat to the ACA? Very big.” Business columnist Michael Hiltzik has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“New Supreme Court judge challenged on conduct as a lawyer in two cases”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine has a front page article that begins, “The newest judge on the Supreme Court of Canada is facing questions about her conduct as a lawyer in two cases. But Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to drop public hearings in which legislators ask questions of new judges means the opportunity to scrutinize the story of Suzanne Cote of Montreal is at an end.”

“David Lat Channels Law Clerk Experience in ‘Supreme Ambitions'”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this Supreme Court Brief.

“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.

“Resentment or Contentment w/Gov’s picks?” Ben Shatz has this post today at the “Southern California Appellate News” blog.

Also today, the Judicial Branch of California issued a news release titled “Commission on Judicial Appointments to Consider Appointment to the Supreme Court of California; Confirmation Hearing Set for Monday, December 22, 2014.”

“Google should pay authors for scanned books, U.S. appeals court told”: Reuters has this report.

“Heavy Lifting: The Supreme Court is flummoxed by pregnancy discrimination and semicolons.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“The Right Side of Death: Why some conservatives are changing their minds on capital punishment.” Stephanie Slade has this essay online at Reason.

“Execution Stayed in Case Of Mental Illness Claim”: David Montgomery will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Federal appeals court stays execution of a schizophrenic Texas man.”

USA Today reports that “Court halts execution of mentally ill Texas inmate.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel will have an article headlined “Federal Appeals Court Postpones Execution of Texas Man; Lawyers for Convicted Murderer Scott Panetti Argue He Is Too Mentally Ill to Be Put To Death.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Federal court stays execution of Wisconsin native Scott Panetti.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Appeals court issues stay in execution of mentally ill man.”

The San Antonio Express-News reports that “Tonight’s execution halted for schizophrenic death row inmate.”

The Texas Tribune reports that “Federal Appeals Court Issues Stay For Panetti.”

Reuters reports that “Mentally ill Texas inmate gets last-minute execution stay.”

And CNN.com reports that “Court orders Texas killer’s execution postponed.”

“Court Strikes Down Drug Tests for Florida Welfare Applicants”: Lizette Alvarez will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Court rejects Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s drug testing of welfare recipients.”

Greg Bluestein of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a blog post titled “Court ruling deals blow to welfare drug-testing law.”

News Service of Florida reports that “Court again rejects Rick Scott’s bid to drug-test Floridians seeking welfare benefits.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court voids Florida welfare drug testing law.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Florida Welfare Applicant Drug Testing Barred by Court.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link. U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg (N.D. Ga.) sitting by designation sat on the three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel.

“Fed. Circ. Slams Sidley For Blown Deadline In $40M AT&T Case”: Erica Teichert of Law360.com has a report (subscription required for full access) that begins, “Three Federal Circuit judges on Wednesday hammered a Sidley Austin LLP attorney for missing a deadline to appeal a $40 million patent verdict against AT&T Inc. after his team overlooked a notice from the lower court, saying attorneys have an obligation to read every order they receive from judges.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via this link (9.58 MB mp3 audio file). Veteran appellate advocate Carter G. Phillips argued the appeal for AT&T.

“Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments over gay divorce”: The Columbia Daily Tribune has this news update.

“The 11th Circuit should give update on Fuller case”: This editorial appears online today at The Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser.

“At 7th Circuit, unseen judicial mechanics drive decisions: new paper.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

Law professor Margaret V. Sachs has posted online at SSRN a paper titled “Superstar Judges as Entrepreneurs: The Untold Story of Fraud-On-The-Market.”

Programming note: I will be meeting with co-counsel in two separate pending appeals this afternoon. Oral argument will occur in one next week, while in the other the opening brief for appellant is due next week. Consequently, additional posts will appear here tonight.

“Appeals court halts Texas execution”: The Associated Press has this report on the order that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

“Roberts at 10: Roberts’s Quiet, But Critical, Votes To Limit Women’s Rights.” Brianne Gorod has this chapter online today at the Constitutional Accountability Center.

“Justices hear pregnancy discrimination case”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“A Look at ‘Justice Scalia’ on the Small Screen”: Jess Bravin has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Is Fisher v. University of Texas a Precedent on Jurisdiction?” Richard M. Re had this post yesterday at “Re’s Judicata.”

“The Judge & Company — Questions for Judge Posner from Judges, Law Professors & a Journalist”: Ronald K.L. Collins has this post today at “Concurring Opinions.”

“Did UPS Discriminate Against A Pregnant Worker By Letting Her Go?” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“The Latest Challenge to Obamacare Should Embarrass Conservative Judges”: Brian Beutler has this essay online at The New Republic.