“Supreme Court chief isn’t top dog in his office; his dog is”: Jan Murphy of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

“Same-Sex Marriage Likely, Not Guaranteed, Law School Profs Predict”: This article appeared earlier this week in The Harvard Crimson.

“Why Adnan Syed of ‘Serial’ Should Have Pleaded Guilty”: Law professor JaneAnne Murray had this op-ed in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Can a baker refuse to make an anti-gay cake?” Michael McGough has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “No, bakeries don’t have to take orders for cakes that say ‘God Hates Gays.’”

“Obama’s renewed push to close Guantanamo prison is seen as promising”: Carol J. Williams has this front page article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

In related coverage, NPR today has a blog post titled “Closing Gitmo ‘Going To Be Very Difficult,’ Hagel Says.”

“Justices to Hear Case Over Drugs Used in Executions”: Adam Liptak and Erik Eckholm have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Mark Berman have a front page article headlined “Supreme Court will review lethal injection drug protocol used in executions.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court will hear challenge to Oklahoma execution drug.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court will review use of lethal injections.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Supreme Court to Review Lethal Injection Protocol in Oklahoma Executions; Justices to Weigh Whether Such Executions Amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court to review Oklahoma’s three-drug execution method.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court to review lethal injections used in Oklahoma executions.”
p>In today’s edition of The Oklahoman, Chris Casteel has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court to review Oklahoma’s execution drugs; In wake of Oklahoma’s controversial execution, high court will examine a state’s execution procedures for the first time since 2008 to determine whether they risk cruel and unusual punishment.”

In today’s edition of The Tulsa World, Ziva Branstetter and Cary Aspinwall have a front page article headlined “Supreme Court agrees to review Oklahoma lethal injection challenge; Justices will decide if state’s lethal injection protocol constitutional.” Aspinwall also has an article headlined “Richard Glossip set for execution Thursday: What does Supreme Court review mean for him?” In addition, the newspaper provides this link to the now-granted petition for writ of certiorari.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court to review Oklahoma lethal injection procedure.”

“Attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch shaped by work with Rwanda tribunal”: Timothy M. Phelps has this front page article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Court: Judges can’t belong to Scouts due to gay ban.” Bob Egelko has this front page article in today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “California judges barred from Boy Scouts over anti-gay discrimination.”

The Washington Times reports that “Boy Scouts participation off limits to judges, says California Supreme Court.”

And The Associated Press reports that “California bars judges from Boy Scouts membership.”

Yesterday, the Judicial Branch of California issued a news release titled “Supreme Court Eliminates Ethics Exception that Permitted Judges to Belong to Nonprofit Youth Organizations That Discriminate.”

“Texas Used Junk Science to Restrict Abortion: The state’s experts lied — and they got caught.” Kathryn Kolbert has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“High-value Guantanamo detainees call home for the first time in nearly a decade; The prison’s most dangerous are allowed to speak with their families in heavily monitored calls”: Julie Tate and Missy Ryan of The Washington Post have this news update.

And The Edmonton Sun reports that “Khadr will seek to be released on bail; Pending decision of an appeal of his U.S. convictions.”

“Group that disrupted the Supreme Court posts video”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

And today at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Brent Kendall has a post titled “Protest Group Foils Supreme Court on Cameras Again.”

Via YouTube, you can view the video here, here, and here.

“U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara Challenges Insider Trading Ruling”: Matthew Goldstein and Ben Protess have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times. According to the article, “since 2012, the Second Circuit has held only one en banc hearing involving as many as 15 appellate judges.”

Christopher M. Matthews of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Prosecutors to Appeal Key Insider-Trading Ruling; Review Sought of Appeals-Court Decision in December Limiting Ability to Pursue Cases.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

USA Today reports that “Federal prosecutors appeal insider trading ruling.”

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. to seek reversal of landmark insider trading ruling.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. to Seek Reversal of Ruling Weakening Insider Cases.”

You can view the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc that the prosecution field yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“GOP may abolish Supreme Court filibusters; The Senate move would expand on changes that Democrats made using the ‘nuclear option'”: Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim of Politico.com have this report.

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

In early news coverage, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices will review use of midazolam as execution drug.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to review Oklahoma execution procedure.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on lethal-injection protocol.”

Judge Posner rejects appeal from Social Security ALJs who are being forced to work harder: You can access Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner‘s ruling on behalf of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Republicans Know Their Obamacare Case Is Bogus. Here’s the Proof.” Brian Beutler has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Alan Dershowitz gets support of Harvard professors; Law school faculty criticize lawyers involved in lawsuit”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz take different paths to confronting the same accuser; The Harvard Law professor says he is able to ‘get into the dirt’ over sex allegations, while the Duke of York must stay above it.”

And The Daily Mail (UK) has an article headlined “All aboard the ‘Lolita Express’: Flight logs reveal the many trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet with anonymous women.”

“States Continue Push To Ban Abortions After 20 Weeks”: This audio segment appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Scalia is a surprise in Supreme Court challenge to Fair Housing Act”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court asked to scale back landmark fair housing law.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court may not slash federal housing protection.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Fair-Housing Lawsuits; Justices Divided Over Moves Against Practices Said to Foster Racial Segregation.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court hears Texas case that tests extent of civil rights doctrine.”

Michael Lindenberger of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Justices testy as Texas pushes to end use of ‘disparate impacts’ in housing discrimination cases.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports that “Supreme Court Skeptical Of Tight Limits On Fair Housing Act; A long-awaited argument brought surprising questions from Justice Antonin Scalia.”

The January 24, 2015 issue of The Economist contains an article headlined “Race and the Supreme Court: Disparate dilemma — The court mulls a controversial theory about how to prove discrimination.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Scalia versus Scalia on housing law?”

“Justices Rule Dismissal of Air Marshal Unlawful”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says former air marshal did not violate law in whistleblower case.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for TSA whistle-blower in Orange County.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sides with former TSA air marshal.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have an article headlined “Supreme Court Sides With Air Marshal on Whistleblower Protections; Air Marshal Robert MacLean Was Fired for Disclosing TSA Had Reduced Protection on Flights.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

The Washington Times has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Feds can’t fire whistleblowers for preserving public safety.”

The Orange County Register has an article headlined “After losing in lower courts for years, fired Ladera Ranch air marshal prevails in U.S. Supreme Court.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Air Marshal Whistleblower.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court Gives a Whistle-Blower Some Help.”

“The People Most at Risk of Losing Insurance in the Supreme Court’s Health Ruling”: At “The Upshot” blog of The New York TImes, Margot Sanger-Katz has a post that begins, “The people who could lose their health insurance as a result of a Supreme Court decision this year are predominantly white, Southern, employed and middle-aged, according to an Urban Institute analysis.”

“For Chief Justice John Roberts, anti-Obamacare lawsuit poses major dilemma”: Greg Sargent has this interview today with law professor Laurence H. Tribe at the “Plum Line” blog of The Washington Post.

The federal government filed its Brief for Respondents yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“A Taxing Decision: The Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage for the most practical of reasons.” Law professor David J. Herzig has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Utah law professor opposes effort by Alan Dershowitz to intervene in victims’ rights suit”: Pamela Manson has this article in today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune.

And The New York Daily News has an article headlined “Alan Dershowitz continues to call ‘sex slave’ Virginia Roberts a ‘liar,’ as new court docs expose salacious details of Prince Andrew-linked scandal.”

“The primary question in this case is whether those convictions must be reversed in light of the Power Point presentation the prosecuting attorney used during closing argument.” The Supreme Court of Washington State has overturned the conviction in a ruling issued today.

Last month, as I noted in this earlier post, Ken Armstrong had an article online at The Marshall Project titled “PowerPoint Justice: When prosecutors slide around the law.”

Second Circuit reinstates portion of “observation status” putative class action challenge brought by Medicare beneficiaries: You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“A Fighting Word”: Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf has this post today at his “Hercules and the Umpire” blog.

“Protest in the Supreme Court: Keep calm and gavel on.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Nullification, Now Coming to the Supreme Court? Mike Huckabee suggests that if the justices rule that gay-marriage bans are unconstitutional, states don’t need to listen.” David A. Graham has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Law Prof. Douglas Laycock wins Supreme Court case; Opposes Arkansas prison facial hair restrictions”: The Cavalier Daily has this report.

“Club for Growth asks U.S. Supreme Court to halt John Doe probe”: Jason Stein of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

And Dee J. Hall of The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “John Doe investigation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Nebraska traffic-stop case”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Omaha World-Herald.

“Ban on Prison Beards Violates Muslim Rights, Supreme Court Says”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of Arkansas Muslim inmate’s request to grow beard.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Muslim prisoner wins Supreme Court case to keep his beard.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds religious rights of prisoners.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Inmate on Prison Beard; Unanimous Decision Says Religious-Freedom Law Permits Facial Hair.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court sides with inmate, strikes down Arkansas prison beard ban.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Unanimous Supreme Court affirms Muslim inmate’s right to grow beard.”

The Washington Times reports that “Gregory Holt, Muslim prisoner, wins Supreme Court OK to wear beard behind bars.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court says Muslim prisoner can keep beard.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules for bearded Muslim inmate.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules for Muslim inmate over prison beard ban.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Prison Beard Ban Tossed as High Court Backs Religious Rights.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules On 2 Prisoner Rights Cases.”

And at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “Religious liberty: Of beards and brevity.”

“Defending those accused of unthinkable crimes: The cases of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Jared Loughner, Whitey Bulger, and others demand a special breed of lawyer.” Scott Helman of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Off the Hook? The Supreme Court Won’t End the Gay Marriage Debate for Republicans.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.