“Justices to Decide if a Ban on Life Terms for Juveniles Applies Retroactively”: 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 will hear case involving life sentences without parole for juveniles.”

And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High court to decide whether young murder convicts can seek freedom.”

“Former Bush lawyer: U.S. did not consider cumulative effects of ‘enhanced interrogation.'” Dan Lamothe has this entry today at the “Checkpoint” blog of The Washington Post.

“Holder won’t force Risen to reveal source”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “AP Source: Justice won’t ask Risen about source.”

In Bashman news from Australia: The West Australian has a news update headlined “Masked thugs bash man.”

“DOJ to SCOTUS: Bankruptcy lawyers can bill for defending their fees.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Scalia: Constitution silent on torture.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in four new cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices to review sentences for young convicts” and “Court will hear dispute over Spider-Man toy.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Life Sentences for Young Murderers Revisited by U.S. High Court” and “Spider-Man Case at Top Court May Topple Decades-Old Patent Rule.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices to hear Louisiana inmate’s appeal over sentence” and “U.S. Supreme Court to hear dispute over Spider-Man toy royalties.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to look again at juvenile life sentences.”

“Illegal Cell Phone Search Invalidates Child Porn Discovery”: Pamela A. MacLean had this post yesterday at her “Trial Insider” blog.

Tim Hull of Courthouse News Service reports that “Child-Porn Plea Rested on Illegal Border Search.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Cell phones exempt from the automobile search exception, Ninth Circuit rules.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

The audio of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments is now available online: Via this link.

“This week, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had delivered the toast to [The New Republic] on its hundredth anniversary, sent a private note to one of the departing editors telling him that she had cancelled her subscription.” So concludes a post titled “Inside the Collapse of The New Republic” that Ryan Lizza has online today at The New Yorker.

“31-year-old associate at big law firm argues before the U.S. Supreme Court”: Eugene Volokh had this post yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“‘Senior status’ lets federal judges keep working — for free”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“U.S. corporations winning fight over human rights lawsuits”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has a report that begins, “A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2013 that made it all but impossible to sue foreign companies in U.S. courts for alleged roles in overseas human rights abuses is proving to be a boon for U.S. firms too, court documents show.”

“When Judicial Activists Switched Sides: Deference to elected majorities was a Progressive ideal long before modern conservatives picked up the baton.” Damon Root has this article in the January 2015 issue of Reason magazine.

“Feds in 2-front fight against release of records on CIA ‘torture'”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post today.

“Attorney Faces Rare Sanction from Nation’s Highest Court”: Jacob Gershman had this post yesterday at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

And two days ago at his blog, Josh Blackman had a post titled “The Many Briefs of Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH.”

This matter seems to exemplify a troublesome issue that litigators, and especially appellate litigators, must frequently confront — namely, clients that insist on dictating the contents, and sometimes even the specific language, of appellate court briefs.

Of course, clients control the goals of litigation, and on appeal that ordinarily includes deciding what issues should be raised, although the appellate attorney must stress the benefits of raising as few issues as possible and the serious detriment of pursuing weak issues.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, clients who expect their attorney to file incomprehensible briefs drafted by the client or to otherwise compromise the attorney’s credibility before the court (to the likely detriment of that attorney’s other clients) need to be educated by the attorney that those are not permissible client demands. And if the client is not willing to refrain from making improper demands on the attorney, then ultimately it is the attorney’s obligation to resign from the representation.

“Journalist spotlight: Joan Biskupic on the reporting behind ‘The Echo Chamber’ series.” Reuters Best has posted this interview online.

“Court rules Beaver County woman at center of tax dispute can keep her house”: The Beaver County (Pa.) Times has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court overturns house’s tax sale over $6.30 bill.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“3rd Circuit Hears Argument in Appeal of Trial Court’s 2257 Opinion”: Mark Kernes of AVN News has this report.

And XBIZ.com reports that “FSC, Justice Dept. Attorneys Give Arguments in 2257 Appeal.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has posted online at this link (21.7 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of Tuesday’s oral argument in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General.

“Appeals Court Will Hear About Hollywood Ageism and Dead Lawyers; A date is set for a showdown that attorneys for actress Huong Hoang say ‘presents a clash between the culture of Hollywood . . . and the culture of internet companies'”: Eriq Gardner has this post today at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“BP Appeals Spill Ruling That May Spell $18 Billion Fine”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Police don’t need warrants to search cellphones in arrests, top court rules”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.

The Toronto Star has a news update headlined “Supreme Court allows police to search cellphones without warrants; The ruling is narrowly split; The assenters laid out conditions for search, but lifted emergency circumstances as a precondition; The dissenters vocally opposed it as a violation of privacy.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Canada court: police can search a suspect’s phone.”

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“Elegy for a Hero of Religious Freedom: Al Smith’s stand against the power of the state eventually led to new laws protecting an ancient Indian faith.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Supreme Court to hear appeal in Khadr case”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court will hear the federal government’s appeal of a ruling that would bring Omar Khadr, a convicted Canadian terrorist now held in an Alberta prison, a step closer to freedom.”

“Appeals Court Deals a Setback to U.S. Crackdown on Insider Trading”: Ben Protess and Matthew Goldstein have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Christopher M. Matthews has an article headlined “Court Overturns Insider-Trading Convictions, a Blow to Justice Department; Judges Narrow Definition of Insider Trading, Say Prosecutors Took Too Broad a View in Wall Street Crackdown.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

The New York Daily News reports that “U.S. Court of Appeals overturns convictions of two hedge-funders accused of insider trading in Dell, Nvidia stock.”

The New York Post has an article headlined “It’s not insider trading if you have a middleman: court ruling.”

USA Today has articles headlined “Court overturns 2 insider trading convictions” and “Insider trading ruling restricts prosecutions.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Insider Trading Prosecutions Just Got Harder as Court Raises Bar.”

Nate Raymond and Emily Flitter of Reuters report that “Insider trading cases face uphill path after convictions tossed.”

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court deals blow to US in insider cases.”

And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a report titled “Insider trading prosecutions were hollow at the core — 2nd Circuit.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“President’s nominees face do-or-die moment as Congress sets to adjourn”: Alexander Bolton of The Hill has this report today.

“Court upholds punitive damages in Asarco harassment case”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this report on a unanimous en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

My post reporting on the original three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling in the case had as its title the opening sentence from the panel majority’s opinion, “We must decide whether the Constitution permits a six-figure punitive damage award in a sexual harassment suit where the jury awarded no compensatory damages and only one dollar in nominal damages.”

“Heavy Lifting: The Supreme Court and Rights for Pregnant Workers.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Amicus: Rapper’s Intent — Dahlia Lithwick talks to a scholar about how courts have interpreted rap lyrics, and hears from the lawyer who argued this week’s pregnancy discrimination case Young v. UPS.” You can access episode seven of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

Access online the contents of the December 2014 issue of the Harvard Law Review: Via this link.

“No Momentum for Reinstating Judicial Filibuster”: Ed Whelan has this post today at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog.

“After they rule against you, leave jurors alone”: Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf has this post today at his “Hercules and the Umpire” blog.

“Constitution Check: Is the Court going to take the country back to the ‘Lochner era’?” Lyle Denniston had this post yesterday at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Dollree Mapp, Who Defied Police Search in Landmark Case, Is Dead”: This obituary appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“On Free Expression & the First Amendment — More Questions for Judge Posner”: Ronald K.L. Collins has this post today at “Concurring Opinions.”