“Dividing ‘Citizens United’: The Case v. The Controversy.” Law professor Laurence H. Tribe has posted this paper online at SSRN.

“Inquirer exclusive: How the perjury case against Kane was built.” This front page article appeared in Friday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And in Friday’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Brad Bumsted had an article headlined “Scenarios don’t let Kane off hook, even if state high court tosses criminal case.”

“Amicus: Throwing Away the Key; Has the Supreme Court turned its back on Guantanamo?” Slate has today posted online lucky episode 13 of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick. This week’s guests are law professors Stephen Vladeck and Jonathan Hafetz.

“Proposed amendment would let Pa. Legislature decide who’s exempt”: Friday’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contained this article reporting on a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn the outcome of a Pa. Supreme Court decision that I argued on behalf of the charitable organization, which lost the case by a vote of 4-to-3.

“Supreme Court candidates differ on campaign funding, recusal”: Bill Lueders of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism recently had this essay.

“Case could set climate change precedent”: Today’s edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune contains a front page article that begins, “Two major lawsuits over how to address climate change while managing San Diego County’s growth and development are poised to pave statewide precedents because of the California Supreme Court’s decision this week to review one case and dismiss the other.”

“California wins a round in epic tax fight with Nevada inventor”: The Sacramento Bee has this report.

“Supreme Court case may devastate hospitals in 34 HealthCare.gov states”: Tony Pugh of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report.

“Behind Supreme Court’s Obamacare Case, A Secretive Society’s Hidden Hand; For more than 30 years, the Federalist Society has worked behind the scenes to shape Supreme Court outcomes to a conservative agenda; In King v. Burwell, its influence could eliminate health insurance subsidies for millions of people”: Nina Martin of ProPublica recently had this report.

“Decision expected Monday in challenge to Falcons stadium deal”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a report that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court will issue an opinion on Monday in a case that could upend Atlanta’s plans to help finance the new $1.4 billion Falcons stadium, according to a court notice.”

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Birthday: 10 Gifts to Get the ‘Notorious’ Supreme Court Justice.” ABC News has this report.

“Is Obama Too Old for Supreme Court?” Online at Bloomberg View, Jonathan Bernstein has an essay that begins, “If Hillary Clinton wins the White House next year, should Barack Obama be her first Supreme Court pick?”

Of course, President William Howard Taft later became Chief Justice of the United States, in which capacity he rejected numerous challenges to his cherished Taftcare program.

“How a 1923 Supreme Court decision could help Mobile’s probate judge in marriage case”: Brendan Kirby of The Mobile Press-Register has an article that begins, “Buried within written legal arguments in a federal lawsuit, Mobile County’s probate judge cites a 9-decade-old legal doctrine that would seem to give him cover for his actions in an adoption dispute revolving around same-sex marriage.”

It’s not every day that a major newspaper reports on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

“U.S. appeals ruling on size of BP oil spill”: Reuters has this report.

“A unique Maryland marriage sits at center of Supreme Court case considering gay nuptials”: Today’s edition of The Baltimore Sun contains a front page article that begins, “When Jim Obergefell and partner John Arthur said ‘I do’ in a small medical jet on the tarmac at BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport in the summer of 2013, they knew it was a powerful turning point.”

“Schuette announces same-sex marriage legal team”: Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press has an article that begins, “Former Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch, who argued eight cases before the U.S. Supreme Court between 2011 and 2013, is being brought back as a special assistant attorney general to argue the state’s defense of a same-sex marriage ban before the court next month.”

“9th Circuit reinstates labeling suit over butter substitute Benecol”: Reuters has this report, which notes that “a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the lower court had erred by finding that plaintiff Robert Reid’s state-law claims were preempted by federal regulation of food labels, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had never authorized the labeling claims in question.”

And Courthouse News Service reports that “Benecol Labeling Claims Revived by 9th Circuit.”

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

“Prominent appeals court judge rips colleagues, immigration courts, backs Chicago cabbie”: This article appeared earlier this month in The Chicago Sun-Times.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reissued its decision in the case because Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has amended his scathing dissenting opinion.

“Flight attendant to get new trial on charge she left a false bomb threat on a plane at Logan”: Boston’s Universal Hub web site has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled today a judge had used an incorrect definition of ‘malice’ in jury instructions and so ordered a new trial for Nancy Gray, an American Airlines flight attendant sentenced to 27 months in federal prison for leaving a note on a plane about to take off that there was a bomb on board.”

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

In her majority opinion, Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson — who in just five years has found a place on my list of the ten best opinion writers on the U.S. Courts of Appeals — explains that the case presents the question “can malice’s fifty shades of meaning include ‘improper motive’?” It is worth noting that two of the judges on that top-ten list call Rhode Island home.