“Court Soundly Rejects Watchmaker’s Attempt To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Sale Of Its Watches At Costco”: At Techdirt, Mike Masnick has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“A Judicial Fund-Raising Case Causes Justices to Reflect on Their Own Jobs”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court considers whether judges can directly ask for campaign donations.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court asked to free judges to personally seek campaign money.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court is divided over judges’ fundraising.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Supreme Court Divided Over Judicial Candidate Campaign Donations; Conservative Justices Challenge Effectiveness of Florida Rule Banning Candidates from Personally Soliciting Donations.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court likely to be divided by issue of judges seeking campaign money.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Judicial Campaign Request Ban Questioned by Top U.S. Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court divided over Florida judicial election law.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices debate judicial candidates’ campaign appeals.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Examines Gray Area In Judicial Campaigning.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Running for a court seat, tin cup in hand?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13-1499.

“Wisconsin Senate approves Supreme Court chief justice amendment”: The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin has an article that begins, “A Republican-backed constitutional amendment to change the way Wisconsin’s Supreme Court chief justice is selected passed the state Senate on a party-line vote Tuesday.”

“A 6-3 Supreme Court majority attends the State of the Union”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“Argument preview: That housing bias issue is back.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And Michael A. Lindenberger of The Dallas Morning News has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear Dallas housing discrimination case.”

Programming note: At 1:30 p.m. today, I will be arguing a criminal appeal before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I recently linked to my client’s appellate briefs in a post you can access here.

New posts will appear here later today.

Update: The audio of my Third Circuit oral argument this afternoon can be accessed via this link (22.4 MB mp3 audio file).

“Access denied: The fight for SCOTUSblog.” Lydia Wheeler of The Hill today has a report that begins, “The idea, he said, was a random brain fart. If they blogged about U.S. Supreme Court cases, they’d be seen as experts and gain new clients for their firm, Tom Goldstein and wife Amy Howe thought when starting SCOTUSblog in 2002, at the onset of blogging.”

“Housing-Bias Claims at Risk as High Court Weighs Curbing Suits”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report today.

“Should Judicial Candidates Be Allowed To Solicit Campaign Money?” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

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 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. And Justice Sotomayor also issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. 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 today in any new cases.

The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Christeson v. Roper, No. 14-6873. Justice Samuel A. Alito , Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.

And in Plumley v. Austin, No. 14-271, Justice Thomas issued a dissent, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined, from the denial of certiorari.

In early news coverage, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Retailers Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Debit-Card Fees“; and “KBR Rejected by High Court on Military Contractor Shield.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court declines challenge to debit card rules.

“On Same-Sex Marriage, No Way to Dodge the Question; If the Supreme Court requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, then it cannot allow states to refuse to celebrate such marriages themselves”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.