“Bob Menendez, facing DOJ indictment, undecided on Loretta Lynch; New Jersey Democrat’s vote could be crucial for confirming Obama’s attorney general nominee”: Manu Raju and Burgess Everett of Politico.com have this report.

“Supreme Court Rules On Two Closely-Watched Discrimination Cases”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

Ninth Circuit to rehear en banc three-judge panel’s reversal of child pornography conviction due to NCIS’s Posse Comitatus Act violation: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

My earlier coverage of the divided three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here, here, and here.

Soon after the panel’s ruling issued, The New York Times covered the decision in an article headlined “Child Pornography Case Spurs Debate on Military’s Role in Law Enforcement.”

“Supreme Court Appears Divided on EPA Rules to Limit Mercury Emissions; Should $9.6 Billion in Annual Costs Have Been Part of Initial Evaluation?” Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices ask if clear air rules are ‘appropriate.’”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: EPA may be a vote short — or not.”

“Ted Cruz ‘still weighing options’ on Obamacare”: Politico.com has a report that begins, “Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a final decision on whether he will sign up for Obamacare but will make up his mind ‘in the coming days,’ a spokesman said Wednesday.”

“Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker”: Robert Barnes and Brigid Schulte of The Washington Post have this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Worker in Pregnancy Discrimination Case; Former UPS driver says she wasn’t accommodated when she was pregnant.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of protecting pregnant women in UPS case.”

The Guardian (UK) reports that “Supreme court sides with former UPS driver in pregnancy discrimination suit.”

Brian Mahoney of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court lightens load for pregnant employees.”

Dave Jamieson of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Pregnant Workers.”

The Hill reports that “SCOTUS sends UPS discrimination case back to lower court.”

Claire Suddath of Bloomberg News reports that “Peggy Young Won Her Pregnancy Discrimination Case Against UPS, Sort Of; The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower court.”

Online at The New Republic, Rebecca Leber has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Just Sided with Pregnant Working Women.”

And online at The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson has an essay titled “Young v. United Parcel Service: For Conservative Reasons, Supreme Court Rules For Pregnant Women — And Against Corporations.”

“Supreme Court Rules Against Alabama in Redistricting Case”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court sends key voting rights case back to Alabama.”

“California Seeks to Head Off Initiative to Execute Gays”: Adam Nagourney of The New York Times has an article that begins, “The California attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, moved Wednesday to block a proposed voter initiative that would mandate the execution of sexually active gay men and women, calling it ‘patently unconstitutional’ and a threat to public safety.”

“Reasonable Accommodations: Do the lives of the mentally ill matter to the Supreme Court?” Cristian Farias has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“6th Circ Affirms Ink Pricing Injunction Against Kodak”: Kelly Knaub of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“Court’s lone black justice rails against ‘racial quotas'”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“A Pregnant Worker’s Right to Sue: The Supreme Court compromises a smart new rule into existence.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Fashioning a remedy for pregnancy bias.”

“Supreme Court appears split over EPA toxics standards”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“Supreme Court Delivers for Pregnant Workers”: Law professor Noah Feldman — who currently seems to be the hardest working legal commentator around — has this essay online at Bloomberg News.

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-46: At this link.

“Judge Chin Honored at Asian Pacific American Law Students Association Event”: Georgetown Law issued this news release yesterday.

“Supreme Court rules against Alabama redistricting plan”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High court says Alabama may have improperly redistricted black voters.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Alabama Voter-Redistricting Plan; Lower court to again review claim legislature packed black voters into handful of districts.”

Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules against Ala. redistricting.”

Mike Cason of AL.com has an article headlined “Will Alabama have to hold new Senate and House elections?”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Court Revives Suit Over Republican-Drawn Alabama Voting Map; The nation’s highest court gives a partial victory to Democrats and black lawmakers.”

And Tarini Parti of Politico.com has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Alabama may have illegally packed black voters into legislative districts.”

“UPS Worker’s Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Reinstated by Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Pregnant woman’s lawsuit against UPS revived by Supreme Court.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Pregnant Workers Backed by U.S. Supreme Court in UPS Case.”

“Iran Case Is So Secret It Can’t Go On”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Justices seem divided over EPA mercury limits”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices divided over challenge to mercury air pollution rule.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Top U.S. Court Questions EPA Emissions Limits for Power Plants.”

And Adam Liptak of The New York Times reports that “Division Seen in Supreme Court on Pollution Limits.”

“Voices: The high court reigns supreme.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Opinion analysis: A small victory for minority voters, or a case with ‘profound’ constitutional implications?” Richard Hasen has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Flag waiving: Free speech and licence plates.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Abortion politics threaten bipartisan bills in Congress”: Erin Kelly of USA Today has an article that begins, “Abortion politics are threatening to derail bipartisan agreements to fight human trafficking and prevent a dramatic drop in Medicare payments for doctors as the fight over the polarizing issue moves to new fronts.”

“How Biased Towards Libertarianism is the US Constitution?” Michael Dorf has this blog post today at “Dorf on Law” discussing his essay online today at Justia’s Verdict titled “Economic Libertarian Constitutionalism Never Really Died.”

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in two argued cases.

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined. And Justice Kennedy also issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895. Justice Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas also issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court sends Alabama redistricting case back for review” and “Justices side with ex-UPS worker who claims pregnancy bias.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices throw out ruling that upheld Alabama redistricting plan” and “U.S. Supreme Court revives pregnant worker’s case against UPS.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court disallows political maps that pack blacks” and “Justices say pregnant workers can seek accommodations.”

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Pregnancy discrimination case resurrected.”

“Supreme Court hears arguments in dispute over EPA mercury rule”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Obama, opponents take air pollution fight to high court.”

The Detroit News reports that “Michigan case pits health against power reliability.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether cost to cut air pollution outweighs health benefits.”

The Hill reports that “EPA regulations face new test at high court.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg has an audio segment titled “Obama Administration Emissions Rules Face Supreme Court Test.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: EPA, on the defensive again.”

At “FiveThirtyEight,” Oliver Roeder has a post titled “The ‘War On Coal’ Comes To The Supreme Court.”

And online at The New Republic, Rebecca Leber has an essay titled “This EPA Rule Will Save Thousands of Lives — if the Supreme Court Upholds It.”

“Labor board still grappling with Supreme Court defeat”: Tim Devaney of The Hill has this report.

“Justices Rule Opinions May Sometimes Be Basis for Securities Fraud Suits”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Gives Omnicare Another Shot at Stopping Investor Suit; Case examined whether companies can be sued for securities registration statements that prove incorrect.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court separates facts from opinion in Omnicare ruling.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Investor Suits Limited by Top U.S. Court in Omnicare Case.”

Courthouse News Service reports that “Mixed Bag in SCOTUS for Omnicare Shareholders.”

Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight reports that “Justices stick to middle of the road in Omnicare securities opinion.”

And at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Supreme Court Protects ‘Opinions’ From Suit — Unless They’re Contradicted By The Facts.”

“U.S. Appeals Court Backs Accreditor’s Decision Against a Massage School”: The Chronicle of Higher Education has this blog post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.