“What Should Clean Air Cost? The Supreme Court’s surprising decision to hear a challenge by big coal.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Appeals court sets arguments in Obama immigration suit”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post that begins, “A federal appeals court announced Tuesday that it will hold an unusual oral argument session next month on the question of whether to stay a judge’s order blocking President Barack Obama from carrying out new immigration executive actions he put forward last year.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court sets April hearing on Obama immigration action.”

“Chicago-based lawyer reflects on historic U.S. Supreme Court free speech win”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this post online at the Newseum Institute.

“DOJ environment chief unbowed as Obama’s agenda faces heavy fire”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“A Company’s Opinion Isn’t Always a Lie”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

Feldman also has an essay titled “Can the Court Rescue Drowning Homeowners?”

“Edmonton bail hearing starts Tuesday in case of convicted terrorist Omar Khadr”: The Edmonton Journal has this report.

Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Convicted terrorist Omar Khadr to make case for release on bail.”

The Toronto Star reports that “Omar Khadr seeks bail while his case is appealed in U.S.; The former Guantanamo detainee will appear in an Edmonton courtroom Tuesday, seeking to be freed after nearly 13 years in custody.”

CBC News reports that “Omar Khadr seeks bail while appealing U.S. war crime conviction; Lawyer Dennis Edney to ask Edmonton court today that his client be allowed out on bail to study.”

And The Canadian Press reports that “Omar Khadr has right to bail like any other prisoner, lawyer argues.”

“The Howard Shipley case: A lesson for others.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The Case for the Firing Squad: As Utah brings back execution by bullet, and other states weigh a change, some argue that the firing squad is the most humane method.” Matt Stroud of Bloomberg News has this report.

“U.S. court asked to weigh fate of captive killer whale in Florida”: Reuters has this report.

And David Ovalle of The Miami Herald reports that “Activists fighting to free Lolita tell court that feds ‘rubber stamp’ Seaquarium license.”

“Obama mercury air pollution rule faces test at U.S. top court”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“High court limits securities suits over deceptive comments”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has a report headlined “Moment of truth: Omnicare wins U.S. case over ‘untrue’ statements.”

“Power Companies Seek to End Losing Streak on EPA at Top U.S. Court”: Greg Stohr and Mark Drajem of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Appeals court to hear case of Lolita, Miami Seaquarium’s killer whale”: David Ovalle of The Miami Herald has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court will entertain arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the captivity of Lolita, the killer whale who has performed at the Miami Seaquarium for decades.”

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 Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Foley Partner Escapes Punishment in Supreme Court”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Two Supreme Court Justices Say Criminal-Justice System Isn’t Working; Justice Breyer says mandatory minimum sentences are ‘a terrible idea'”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court won’t review Pa. preemption ruling for reference drug”: Jessica Dye of Reuters has this report.

“This Gay Rights Group Wants The Supreme Court To Shut It Down”: Amanda Terkel of The Huffington Post has an article that begins, “If everything goes as he hopes, Evan Wolfson will soon be out of a job.”

“Herbert’s signature finalizes return of Utah’s firing squad”: The Deseret News has this report.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “Utah governor signs 55 bills into law, brings back firing squad.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Utah to use firing squads if lethal drugs are unavailable.”

“States ask court to keep block on Obama immigration orders”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post that begins, “Governors and attorneys general representing 26 states Monday formally urged a federal appeals court not to stay a judge’s injunction barring President Barack Obama from going forward with a series of immigration policy changes aimed at giving quasi-legal status and work permits to millions more illegal immigrants.”

“Justices’ Foley Warning Shows Attys Must Rein In Clients”: Ryan Davis of Law360.com has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “While a Foley & Lardner LLP partner who filed a jargon-filled petition mostly written by a client escaped U.S. Supreme Court sanctions Monday, the justices nonetheless put attorneys on notice that they have a responsibility not to simply rubber-stamp convoluted filings if a client insists, experts say.”

“Wal-Mart wants U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Pa. wage case”: Jane M. Von Bergen of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article that begins, “Wal-Mart has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a December decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve a $151 million class-action award to employees in the state for unpaid wages and damages.”

“Justices Look for Reasoning Behind Texas Ban on Confederate License Plate”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “Censorship vs. free speech on specialized license plates in Texas.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Justices reluctant to force Texas to issue Confederate license plates.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Grapples With Specialty License Plate Case; A lawyer argued Texas must issue plates showing Confederate battle flag.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Confederate-Flag Plate Case Offers Top Court No Easy Answer.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Justices Debate Place Of Offensive Language On License Plates.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Supreme Court dispatch titled “Lost Cause: Do devotees of the Confederacy have a First Amendment right to put the rebel battle flag on their license plates?”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Rebel Yells and License Plates.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., No. 14-144.

“Court to try again on juveniles’ life sentences”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High court to decide whether young murderers can one day go free.”

“Wisconsin Decides Not to Enforce Voter ID Law; Supreme Court Deflines to Hear Challenge to Wisconsin Voter ID Law”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes and Mark Berman of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court lets Wisconsin’s voter-ID law stand.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law; State Republican lawmakers enacted tighter voter requirement in 2011.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Wisconsin voter ID law survives Supreme Court challenge.”

Jason Stein and Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “U.S. Supreme Court refuses to take up challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law; But law won’t be in effect for April 7 election.”

Eric Bradner of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court keeps Wisconsin voter ID law in place.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Wisconsin Voter-ID Law Stands as Supreme Court Rejects Appeal; The justices give a victory to Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.”

And Samantha Lachman of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Won’t Consider Challenge To Wisconsin Voter ID Law.”

“Supreme Court weighs S.F. police shooting of mentally ill woman”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court confronts case of mentally ill suspect shot by police.”

And Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” has a post titled “Argument analysis: Can a really rough start be overcome?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, No. 13-1412.

“U.S. justices voice support for criminal justice reform”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Ted Cruz, a Smart Conservative With Sharp Elbows”: In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, Ashley Parker and Maggie Haberman will have an article that begins, “Back in late 2000, Ted Cruz found himself with one of the hottest tickets in town. As a former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Mr. Cruz, a junior aide on George W. Bush’s presidential campaign, had scored a seat inside the Supreme Court for the oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, which would decide the election.”

“Supreme Court Fiscal Year 2016 Budget: Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified on the Supreme Court fiscal year 2014 budget and the federal judiciary system.” Via C-SPAN, you can access the video of this just-concluded video by clicking here.

“High Court Dumps 1 Of 3 Pa. Reglan Preemption Petitions”: Dan Packel of Law360.com has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would not hear one of three pending petitions seeking review of a Pennsylvania appellate court ruling that the product liability claims of thousands of generic Reglan users weren’t necessarily preempted by federal law.”

“Supreme Court considers impact of disability law on police”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

“Justices frown on state censorship of license plates”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court voices skepticism over Confederate license plates.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices struggle with free speech case over license plates.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court wrestles over Confederate flag license plate.”

Michael Lindenberger of The Dallas Morning News has a blog post titled “Supreme Court hears Texas case on rejected Confederate flag license plate.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Assuming the answer, up front.”

“First Amendment, ‘Patron Saint’ of Protesters, Is Embraced by Corporations”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Justices Scold but Decline to Punish Attorney Who Faced Rare Sanction”: Jacob Gershman has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

Aebra Coe of Law360.com has an article headlined “High Court Won’t Discipline Foley Atty For Jumbled Petition” (subscription required for full access) that begins, “A Foley & Lardner LLP partner on Monday was freed of a rare sanction threat from the U.S. Supreme Court for filing an impenetrable, jargon-packed petition in a patent suit that the lawyer says was penned largely by his client.”

And at his “Legal Ethics Forum” blog, John Steele has a post titled “SCOTUS declines to discipline Foley lawyer who filed oddly worded petition.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in two new cases and called for the view of the Solicitor General in four related cases.

In the attorney discipline proceeding captioned In the Matter of Howard Neil Shipley, the Court today issued the following order:

A response having been filed, the Order to Show Cause, dated December 8, 2014, is discharged. All Members of the Bar are reminded, however, that they are responsible — as Officers of the Court — for compliance with the requirement of Supreme Court Rule 14.3 that petitions for certiorari be stated ‘in plain terms,’ and may not delegate that responsibility to the client.

And in Bower v. Texas, No. 14-292, Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined, from the denial of certiorari.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices to review sentences for young convicts“; “High court will hear DirecTV appeal over termination fees“; “Justices turn away challenge to Wisconsin voter ID law“; and “Texas man on death row since 1984 loses Supreme Court appeal.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court to hear Louisiana life-without-parole sentencing case“; “U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear DirecTV arbitration case“; “Supreme Court leaves intact Wisconsin voter identification law“: and “U.S. top court declines to hear Texas death row inmate’s appeal.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court lets Wisconsin voter ID law stand.”