“Federal appeals court dismisses lawsuit in Border Patrol shooting of Juarez teen; Agent shot and killed teen in 2010”: Daniel Borunda of The El Paso Times has this news update.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Family of teen shot across border can’t sue in US.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

Access online the audio from this week’s three U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: Via this link.

“Alberta judge grants Omar Khadr bail pending appeal”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.

And The Edmonton Journal has a news update headlined “Former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr to be released on bail.”

“Appeals court upholds dismissal of libel suit by Abbas’ son”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Arpaio: PI hired to investigate judge’s wife.” Megan Cassidy of The Arizona Republic has an article that begins, “In a bombshell diversion from his contempt-of-court proceedings, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio testified under oath Thursday that his attorneys had hired a private agent to investigate the wife of the federal judge who ruled that the Sheriff’s Office had engaged in racial profiling.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Arizona sheriff reveals investigation into judge’s wife.”

“Bill would create ethics code for Supreme Court justices”: The Hill has this report.

Justices’ Questions, Answered: Previously on Same-Sex Marriage Arguments at the Supreme Court . . . Law professor Kenji Yoshino has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Meet the lawyers who will argue the gay marriage case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

And Oralandar Brand-Williams of The Detroit News has articles headlined “Same-sex marriage case in court: Attorney John Bursch” and “Same-sex marriage case in court: Attorney Mary Bonauto.”

“King: Ban federal courts from overturning traditional marriage laws.” The Des Moines Register has an article that begins, “U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, has introduced a bill in Congress that would ban federal judges from ruling on lawsuits aimed at overturning state bans on same-sex marriage.”

“Alabama married same-sex couples caught in limbo”: The Montgomery Advertiser has this report.

“Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court”: Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times has this report.

“Tennessee at forefront as gay marriage case goes to Supreme Court”: The Tennessean has this report.

“John Roberts’ big moment: Will he anger conservatives again?” Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report today.

“How a Cincinnati judge could shape the gay marriage case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com today has a report that begins, “Judge Jeffrey Sutton doesn’t have a lot of company on the appeals courts these days.”

“ESPN Beats Pro Wrestler in Dispute Over Rebroadcast of Old Matches; An appellate ruling could be a good sign for broadcasters as they fight in court with college athletes”: Eriq Gardner had this post yesterday at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

You can access Wednesday’s per curiam ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“End the Supreme Court’s Ban on Cameras”: Jonathan Sherman has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

FRAP Advisory Committee agrees to scrap “3-day rule” for responding to documents served by electronic means: Also yesterday, after much discussion, the FRAP Advisory Committee agreed to approve an amendment that would eliminate the extra three days that the FRAP now provide for responding to documents served through electronic means, including via CM/ECF.

A similar change is scheduled to go into effect in the procedural rules applicable to district and bankruptcy courts. However, appellate attorneys on the FRAP Advisory Committee expressed concerns that the 14-day period for filing a reply brief is a uniquely short time for filing such an important document. As a result, the FRAP Advisory Committee plans to consider in the very near future whether the 14-day period for filing a reply brief should be extended to 17 or 21 days. In addition, the FRAP Advisory Committee intends to send a letter to the chief judges of all the U.S. Courts of Appeals explaining that expanding the time for reply briefs will remain under consideration, and that courts should consider continuing to afford 17 days in which to file reply briefs in the interim.

Lastly, the FRAP Advisory Committee is encouraging the Standing Committee to include a statement in the comments encouraging courts to freely grant extensions when documents are served electronically late at night or late at night before a weekend or holiday weekend. However, because the elimination of the extra three days following e-service will go into effect in district courts and bankruptcy courts at the same time it goes into effect in appellate courts, such a comment will only be included in the FRAP if the comment is also deemed acceptable for inclusion with the rules governing district courts and bankruptcy courts. Already, certain of the advisory committees overseeing those other rules have expressed their opposition to adding such a comment.