“Religious Freedom, Again: Why the Supreme Court should take up the Bronx Household of Faith case.” Michael Stokes Paulsen has this essay online at National Review.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Excluding ‘religious worship services’ when government opens up property for public access.”

“Inside The Strategy To Persuade John Roberts To Save Obamacare”: Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report.

Legal writing guru Bryan A. Garner opposes the FRAP briefing word limit reductions: Garner expressed his view on the issue in a tweet published late last night.

“Herald Price Fahringer, a Defender of Free Speech, Dies at 87”: This obituary appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

And Mark Kernes of AVN News has written an obituary headlined “Herald Price Fahringer, Prominent 1st Amendment Attorney, Passes; ‘I doubt we’ll see the likes of him again anytime soon,’ said Larry Flynt.”

“Judicial panel dismisses complaint against Judge Edith Jones; Committee affirms probe clearing judge of misconduct in death-case speech”: Lise Olsen of The Houston Chronicle has this report. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

You can access yesterday’s decision of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States at this link.

“For Obamacare challengers, a Supreme Court case built for speed”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court to hear case of a headscarf that cost a Muslim teen a job”: Lauren Markoe of Religion News Service has this report today.

“Crossbow OK for felon, but Supreme Court to rule on rest of arsenal”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report today.

“The Supreme Court’s new chance to remake insider-trading law”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight had this report today.

“Judge Hanen’s Flawed Ruling: He didn’t get to the heart of the problem with the Obama amnesty.” Law professor John Yoo has this essay online today at National Review.

“Supreme Court case against Obamacare faces obstacles”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Faithfully Executed: Obama’s new immigration program is perfectly legal and should not be blocked.” Law professor Eric Posner has this essay online at Slate.

“Philly DA sues Wolf over death penalty moratorium”: Steve Esack has this front page article in today’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article headlined “Phila. D.A. seeks to overturn Wolf’s death-penalty moratorium.”

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News reports that “D.A. seeks to overturn Wolf’s death-penalty ban.”

And Reuters reports that “Prosecutor moves to halt Pennsylvania governor’s death row reprieve.”

You can access at this link the emergency King’s Bench petition that the Philadelphia District Attorney filed yesterday in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

“Sex crime ruling a tough test for Brown’s high court appointees”: Bob Egelko had this article in Tuesday’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle.

You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

D’oh — “Court document may reveal Alabama’s death penalty drug manufacturer”: Tim Lockette has this front page article in today’s edition of The Anniston Star.

“Travis County clerk issues first legal gay marriage license in Texas”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Same-sex couple marries in Texas under one-time order.”

“Is There a Silver Lining in Judge Hanen’s Injunction Against the Obama Immigration Policy?” Michael Dorf had this post Tuesday at “Dorf on Law.”

“Tsarnaev lawyers urge appeals court to move trial outside Boston”: The Boston Globe has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Tsarnaev lawyers ask US appeals court to move bombing trial.”

Judicial handshakes — “A New Practice at the Third Circuit?” Bruce D. Greenberg has this post at his “New Jersey Appellate Law” blog.

As news reports (see here and here) recently confirmed, a judicial fist bump might be the most hygienic post-argument form of greeting from the bench, although judicial high-fives could present an appropriate compromise solution.

Barring that, the Third Circuit‘s security screening does in my experience permit members of the public to bring small bottles of hand sanitizer into the courthouse. In this especially dangerous cold and flu season, that would seem to be good practice regardless of whether an oral argument wraps up with hugs and kisses, a handshake, or the more commonly experienced resolution of “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

“‘Moldy’ washer class to 6th Circuit: Jury verdict was tainted.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight had this report on Tuesday.

“What Are 30 Years Worth? In the case of this wrongfully convicted man, Louisiana says $0.00.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Marshall Project.

“Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law?” Amanda Frost has this article in the current issue of the Vanderbilt Law Review.

Earlier this week at “Dorf on Law,” Michael Dorf had a post titled “Even More Thoughts on State Court (Non)Obligation to Follow Federal Appeals Court Precedents (Wherein I Respond to Professor Frost).”

“Constitution Check: Is the President’s new immigration policy already a constitutional dead letter?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Cal court says Iran’s justice system not fair enough for property dispute”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this blog post reporting on a ruling that the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued on Tuesday.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Plaintiffs can sue in California — rather than in Iran — because the Iranian system is biased against non-Muslims and women.”

What’s next in the battle over the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions? Although the public comment period concluded on Tuesday, that is merely one step in an ongoing process.

A public hearing to consider these and other amendments that had been scheduled for Tuesday in Washington, D.C. was postponed (scroll down) due to weather, and a replacement date has yet to be announced. I was not planning to speak at that public hearing, because I have the ability to communicate to the decision-makers whenever I choose via this blog (and because I have already said everything that currently needs to be said in my numerous earlier posts on this blog and in my actual public comment submitted of record). Sometimes more than just one public hearing will occur on FRAP amendments, allowing interested people in other parts of the country to more conveniently appear and be heard.

Once the public hearing or hearings occur, the pending proposed FRAP amendments will receive further consideration in the assigned rules committee. Those committees meet in public, although it is not common for many observers to show up uninvited. If that meeting occurs reasonably close to me, I would hope to attend, schedule permitting. If I can’t attend, I will of course report on what happens based on second-hand accounts.

I realize that through dint of hard work this blog provides me with an opportunity to communicate directly with the appellate community in the United States to some extent. In that regard, I very much appreciate the sentiments of those readers who have emailed or telephoned to communicate to me their thanks for helping to draw attention to the FRAP word limit reduction proposal and helping to motivate the impressive opposition that the proposal has received. At the same time, everyone should recognize that no one else is opposing the word limit reduction proposal simply because I think it is a bad idea. Rather, the reason the word limit reduction proposal has elicited so much well-reasoned and deeply felt opposition from so many is that, on its merits, the proposal is a very, very bad idea.

“White House Struggles on Immigration Ruling”: Michael D. Shear and Adam Liptak have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. Judge Andrew Hanen has history of opposing Obama immigration policies.”

And in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky and Samuel Kleiner have an op-ed titled “Texas judge’s immigration ruling is full of legal holes.”

“Unlikely Cause Unites the Left and the Right: Justice Reform”: Carl Hulse has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“As Health Exchange Sign-Ups Rise, So Do Stakes for Supreme Court”: Robert Pear has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“InterDigital Loses Appeal in ITC Case Against ZTE, Microsoft”: Susan Decker of Bloomberg News has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued yesterday.

“Japan’s Gay Marriage Push Faces Constitutional Barrier”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg Upends the Notion of the Silent Justice”: Charlotte Alter of Time magazine has this report.

And at the re-designed National Review website, Edward Whelan has an essay titled “Injudicious Ginsburg: Her unethical comments require her recusal from pending marriage cases.”

On a related note, Josh Blackman on Monday had a post titled “The Seven Stages of Criticizing Justice Ginsburg’s Extrajudicial Statements.”

“The Six Horsemen (of the Apocalypse)”: Today at his “Balls & Strikes” blog, Calvin TerBeek has a post that begins, “Actuarially speaking, there are four justices on the Court that the next president might replace: Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy.”

“Groundhog Day at the Supreme Court: Will the Supreme Court Consider Affirmative Action Again?” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Markel’s death remains a mystery”: Sean Rossman of The Tallahassee Democrat has a news update that begins, “Seven months after someone shot Florida State law professor Dan Markel in the garage of his Betton Hills home, the Tallahassee Police Department has yet to make an arrest or identify a suspect.”

“Guantanamo Conviction of Australian Is Overturned”: Matt Apuzzo will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Military court throws out Australian’s Guantanamo war crimes conviction.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Military Appeals Court Tosses First-Ever Guantanamo Bay Conviction; Court sides with Australian who repudiated guilty plea after 2007 deal.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Court annuls guilty plea of Australian ex-detainee.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. court overturns conviction of Australian once held at Guantanamo” and “Australian held at Guantanamo says he was tortured for five years.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court nixes Guantanamo conviction of Australian ex-detainee.”

And Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “Another setback for Guantanamo trials.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Military Commissions Review at this link.