“Should Victims Say How Boston Bomber Pays?” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Court considers limits to vagueness in statutes”: In Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article that begins, “The Supreme Court on Monday tried to discern just how vague and opaque a law must be before the justices should strike down the whole thing and tell Congress to try again.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120.

“Courts’ War on FDR Continues With Obama”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Too Vague to Be Constitutional: Two indecipherable criminal laws passed in the 1980s now face scrutiny at the Supreme Court.” Online last Friday at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps had this essay previewing two U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments occurring this week.

“A reporter’s guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court”: Amy Howe has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Ecuadoreans’ Lawsuit Against Chevron Might Need a U.S. Retrial, Judge Suggests; Judge Richard Wesley asked lawyers whether they would support a retrial of a 2011 ruling against the company by an Ecuadorean court”: Nicole Hong of The Wall Street Journal has this report. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. court hears Chevron’s fraud claims in $9.5 billion Ecuador dispute.”

Paul Barrett of Bloomberg News has an article headlined “After 22 Years, Appellate Judge in Epic Pollution Case Suggests a Do-Over; The case that pits oil giant Chevron against a New York lawyer started in 1993.”

Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News Service reports that “NYC Retrial of Chevron Pollution Case Floated by 2nd Circuit Judge.”

Pete Brush of Law360.com reports that “2nd Circ. Urged To Look Past Donziger In $9.5B Chevron Case” (subscription required for full access).

And Roger Parloff of Fortune.com has a post titled “Judge asks puzzling questions at Chevron v. Donziger appeal.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit does not make its oral argument audio readily available online.

“How heirs of alleged rare coin thief won gamble against U.S. Mint”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Rock band The Slants cannot trademark disparaging name: appeals court.” Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

And at his “Likelihood of Confusion” blog, Ron Coleman (counsel for appellant in the case) has a post titled “Federal Circuit on the THE SLANTS: Shut up about the constitution already.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Federal Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Bombing trial enters penalty phase amid life or death debate”: The Associated Press has this report.

“In Brief to Justices, Former Military Officials Support Same-Sex Marriage”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“‘Nonmedia’ speakers don’t get full First Amendment protection, rules the Texas Court of Appeals”: Eugene Volokh has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

It’s time to reconsider whether the Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register immoral, scandalous, or disparaging marks violates the First Amendment: So argues Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore in a separate opinion issued today.

Moore also wrote the opinion of the court, which affirmed the PTO’s refusal to register the trademark THE SLANTS, as requested by an Asian-American dance rock band using that name, because it is disparaging.

In earlier coverage of the appeal, Diane Bartz and Andrew Chung of Reuters reported that “Rock band The Slants wants to reclaim slur for trademark.”

And 89.3 KPCC-FM’s “AirTalk” had an audio segment titled “Asian-American band ‘The Slants’ asks federal court for right to trademark slur.”

A three-judge Federal Circuit panel heard oral argument of this appeal on January 9, 2015, and you can access the oral argument audio via this link (7.39 MB mp3 audio file).

“The Case That Could Redefine Mass Litigation Over Oil Spills, Work Hazards: Can Corporations Use RICO Law to Combat Plaintiffs’ Lawyers?” Paul Barrett of Bloomberg News has this report on a case being argued today at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“Life or death? Boston bomber’s trial turns to sentencing.” Reuters has this report.

“Time Behind Bars? A Supreme Court decision on the Armed Career Criminal Act could shorten sentences for hundreds of prisoners.” Matt Stroud of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Bryn Mawr College honors Sotomayor”: The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Judicial candidates — known for being unknown”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

Update: In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court orders review of North Carolina redistricting“; “High court rejects terror victims’ claims against Chiquita“; “High court won’t hear appeal in Connecticut synagogue suit“; “High court rejects Wisconsin appeal over tribal night hunts“; and “High court won’t hear appeal of Ex-Goldman board member.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rejects Colombian Chiquita human rights suit” and “Supreme Court rejects Rajat Gupta’s insider trading appeal.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Review Ordered for Republican-Drawn North Carolina Voting Maps” and “Supreme Court Rejects Ex-Goldman Director Rajat Gupta’s Appeal.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Government faces new contracting duty.”

“Lawyer for convicted ex-Connecticut governor outlines appeal”: The Associated Press has this report.