Double entendre: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Supreme Court orders state to provide incontinence briefs.”

Fortunately for their wearers, the briefs will not have to be bound to exacting U.S. Supreme Court standards.

“The Supreme Court Ignores the Lessons of Ferguson: As the rest of the country worries about police overreach, the justices give cops yet more latitude.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “For Police, Ignorance Excuses.”

“Constitution Check: How much secrecy does the First Amendment give to political donors?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Industry’s mercury challenge could undermine attack on EPA climate rule”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has a report that begins, “If coal companies get their way when the Supreme Court reviews U.S. EPA’s air standards for mercury and other hazardous emissions, they could undermine their primary legal challenge to another landmark pollution rule: President Obama’s greenhouse gas limits for power plants.”

“The Case for Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire”: Bill Scher had this essay yesterday at Real Clear Politics.

“SCOTUSblog on camera: Dahlia Lithwick (Part one).” You can view the video via this link.

“Ruling overturned on sex-change surgery for Mass. inmate”: John R. Ellement and Martin Finucane of The Boston Globe have a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court has overturned a ruling that a transgender Massachusetts prison inmate is entitled to taxpayer-funded sex change surgery.”

The Boston Herald has a news update headlined “Convicted killer Michelle Kosilek’s demand for sex-change operation rejected.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court overturns sex-change for inmate.”

You can access today’s 117-page, 3-to-2 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, consisting of a majority opinion and two dissenting opinions, at this link.

“District court declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” discussing a ruling that one of the most politically conservative judges serving on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued today.

Update: In early news coverage, Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Obama’s immigration actions ruled unconstitutional.”

Brian Bowling of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “Judge uses deportation case to say Obama’s executive order is unconstitutional.”

The Associated Press reports that “US judge says Obama immigration action invalid.”

And at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Jacob Gershman has a post titled “A Judge Calls Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration Unconstitutional.”

Access online the contents of the Autumn 2014 issue of the Green Bag: Via this link (bobbleheads not included; you need a subscription to receive those).

Speaking of which, in yesterday’s mail I received a certificate from the Green Bag for the Chief Justice William Rehnquist bobblehead (Supp. 1).

“Senate may confirm up to 88 federal judges”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Posner pisses off plenty of people on privacy”: Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf has this alliteratively titled post today at his “Hercules and the Umpire” blog.

“Pa. Supreme Court Sides with Cozen O’Connor in Campaign Finance Dispute”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog” noting a decision that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued yesterday.

Update: In other coverage, The Philadelphia Daily news has a report headlined “PA Supreme Court: Law firm can forgive U.S. Rep. Bob Brady’s 2007 debt.”

“A Conversation with Justice Elena Kagan: A conversation between Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan” recorded November 20, 2014. You can view the video via this link.

“If uncorrected by this Court en banc or the Supreme Court, this decision, and others like it, sends a clear message to litigants: if you don’t like the factual findings of a district court, the doors of our Court are wide open to endless retrials on appeal.” So writes Circuit Judge Edward C. Prado in a dissent issued yesterday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit‘s denial of rehearing en banc. The revised three-judge panel’s opinion in this environmental case can be accessed here.

In earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s original ruling in the appeal, The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reported that “Court reverses ruling on whooping cranes’ deaths.”

“When the Law Gives Everybody But You a Break”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Appeals court rehears copyright case over anti-Muslim film”: Victoria Kim of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Copyrights, Anti-Muslim Film Rights Collide.”

“L.A. Porn Film Condom Mandate Survives Industry Challenge”: Bloomberg News has this report.

Reuters reports that “Los Angeles porn actors must wear condoms, appeals court rules.”

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court upholds condom use in LA porn films.”

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Adult Film Industry Loses Appeal Over Los Angeles’ Condom Law; The 9th Circuit decides that making porn actors wear condoms doesn’t run afoul of the First Amendment.”

Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Upholds Condom Law For L.A.’s Porn Film Industry.”

LA Weekly has a blog post titled “Condoms Do Not Muzzle Free Speech, U.S. Court Rules.”

Mark Kernes reports that “Ninth Circuit Panel Upholds Measure B — At Least Until Trial; Three-judge panel claims it has jurisdiction to review the case despite AHF’s lack of standing.”

And Rhett Pardon of XBIZ Newswire has reports headlined “Vivid Loses Appeal Over Measure B” and “FSC: Measure B Plaintiffs Looking at Legal Options.”

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

View online the video of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit oral argument in Garcia v. Google, Inc. On YouTube (a co-defendant in the case) via this link. The video starts early enough that you can see Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith saying his characteristic hellos in the courtroom in advance of the oral argument.* And you can access the documents filed in the case via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Lawyer: Free speech at stake in anti-Muslim film.”

—

*Update: After this post originally appeared, the video was edited to remove the footage that appeared before the oral argument began.

“High court’s ideological opposites show mutual affection”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has a report from Oxford, Mississippi that begins, “The Supreme Court’s most senior and junior justices are ideological opposites, but they agreed on nearly everything here Monday — including the benefits of having an elite cadre of lawyers who dominate the court’s docket.”

“Pa. Supreme Court affirms $151M wages ruling against Wal-Mart”: The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update that begins, “Walmart and Sam’s Club workers in Pennsylvania who worked off-the-clock and worked when they were supposed to be on break, or were forced to skip their breaks will receive $151 million in unpaid wages and damages, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding lower- and appellate-court decisions.”

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a per curiam majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Elena Kagan joined in full and Justice Clarence Thomas joined in large part. And Justice Thomas also issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Heien v. North Carolina, No. 13-604. Justice Kagan issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases, but the Court did call for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

“Are Supreme Court Justices Too Privileged to Understand Average Americans?” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Praxis” blog of big think.

“On Privacy, Free Speech, & Related Matters — Richard Posner vs David Cole & Others”: Ronald K.L. Collins has this post today at “Concurring Opinions.”

“Supreme Court watchers wonder if justices are ready to take a same-sex marriage case”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“In It Together? Do recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on class actions mean less security in numbers?” Seth Stern has this article in the Fall 2014 issue of the Harvard Law Bulletin.

“Google, YouTube in key legal battle over anti-Muslim video”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this preview of tomorrow’s en banc oral argument before an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

You can access the recent filings in the case via this link.

“Privacy is not dead: Microsoft lawyer prepares to take on US government; Brad Smith tells Dominic Rushe US demand for access to customer’s emails on server in Dublin strikes at heart of balance between safety and privacy.” The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Orthodox Jews back scarf-wearing Muslim in Abercrombie & Fitch case”: The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“‘La torture pas anticonstitutionnelle’, dit le doyen de la Cour supreme US”: Yesterday, Radio Television Suisse aired an interview with Justice Antonin Scalia. You can access the audio of a lengthy excerpt from the interview via this link.

And RTS has posted online this article about the interview. According to Google Translate, the headline of the article states,”‘Torture not unconstitutional,’ said the dean of the US Supreme Court.”

“Soledad Cross land transfer approved; Law could let landmark stay through private ownership of property”: The San Diego Union-Tribune has this report.

“Grisly Execution in Oklahoma Detailed in Court Brief”: Erik Eckholm will have this article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

And The Tulsa World has an article headlined “Botched execution described as ‘a cluster,’ court filing shows.”

“Miss. student wins challenge to rap song suspension”: The Associated Press has this report on the ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Another Baseless Attack on Health Law”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “The opponents of the Affordable Care Act have filed another long-shot lawsuit that could undermine health care reform and force many consumers to pay more for health insurance if the suit succeeds.”

“Spider-Man patent case headed to Supreme Court”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Supreme Court Will Review Case About Spider-Man Toy; The inventor of a device that lets kids pretend they can shoot webs out of the palms of their hands gets to argue why Marvel continues to owe him royalties.”