“Two Pretexts Walk Into a Bar: The arguments against gay marriage can’t be reconciled with the arguments for religious freedom acts.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Election 2015: Now it’s voters’ turn in low-profile Supreme Court race.” Dee J. Hall of The Wisconsin State Journal has this report.

And Steven Elbow of The Capital Times reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court election spending ratchets up.”

“After Nazi Plunder, A Quest To Bring The ‘Woman In Gold’ Home”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Lawyers Resist Plan to Trim Length of Appeals Briefs”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has a Supreme Court brief (subscription required for full access) that begins, “Forcing lawyers to write shorter briefs is not the solution to the problems federal appeals court judges have with outsized filings, an advisory panel was told on Wednesday.”

And Michael Macagnone of Law360.com has an article headlined “Attys Resist Proposal To Shrink Appellate Brief Limits” (subscription required for full access) that begins, “Several appellate attorney organizations on Monday blasted a judicial rule-making body’s proposals to shorten appellate brief lengths, saying the plans would hurt advocacy efforts in a swath of complex areas including Native American law, antitrust disputes and challenges to federal agency activities.”

The full text of Mauro’s article suggests that no testimony in favor of the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reduction was received at yesterday’s Appellate Rules and Forms Public Hearing in Washington, DC. When the transcript of the hearing becomes available, I will link to it.

Lastly, at the “Appellate Advocacy Blog,” David R. Cleveland has a post titled “Federal Appellate Rulemaking on Brief Word Counts.”

“In Iowa, Ted Cruz denounces gay marriage, lauds Indiana religious liberty bill”: Todd J. Gillman of The Dallas Morning News has this blog post.

“When Liberals and Conservatives Agree on Women’s Rights: It’s not as uncommon as you think.” Law professor Naomi Schoenbaum has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Giving Up on the Supreme Court Too Soon”: Kenneth Jost had this post Sunday at his blog, “Jost On Justice.”

“Constitution Check: Who has a right to speak up in the Supreme Court?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“The Problem With Funding Government Through Fines: A budget shortfall at the Nevada Supreme Court underlines a broader fiscal quandary.” Matt Ford has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Poland asks U.S. to spare alleged USS Cole bomber from execution”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Five citizen activists with 99Rise interrupted the U.S. Supreme Court a day before the one-year anniversary of its outrageous McCutcheon v. FEC decision, which eliminated aggregate limits on individual campaign spending.” The99Rise has posted this video online at YouTube (via Rick Hasen).

“Protest at the Supreme Court. Only problem? Few reporters were there to see it.” Al Kamen has this post at the “In the Loop” blog of The Washington Post.

“Protesters charged after U.S. Supreme Court disruption”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“The Threat to Obama from the Courts”: Jeffrey Toobin had this post online yesterday at The New Yorker.

“The Third Circuit last year issued the fewest published opinions of any circuit, again”: Matthew Stiegler has this post today at his “CA3blog.”

“Study Casts Doubt on Kantian Link to Bulgarian Law”: Jacob Gershman has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Oral Arguments in Commil v. Cisco”: Dennis Crouch has this post at “Patently-O.”

“Supreme Court’s Big Gay Pandora’s Box: The idea that we should make gay marriage the law of the land and yet refuse to force businesses to follow that law is unjust and absurd.” Michael Tomasky has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

“Cassell and Dershowitz to Settle Grudge in MMA Match”: Michael Dorf has this post today at “Dorf on Law.”

“Pao faces tough court if she appeals Kleiner bias lawsuit”: Dan Levine of Reuters has this report.

“99 Rise Says It Has Disrupted #SCOTUS Again, with Campaign Finance Messages”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

In this week’s installment of “Who are these irresponsible and unconstrained lawyers inflicting unnecessarily long briefs on the federal appellate courts?” On Monday, I had a post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued that day in a case captioned Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. von Drehle Corp. The second and final paragraph of my post explained:

Carter G. Phillips argued the appeal on behalf of the defendant-appellant, while Miguel A. Estrada argued the appeal on behalf of the plaintiff-appellee.

In exchange for a $9 contribution to PACER, I can now report that the Phillips brief for appellant contained 13,620 words, the Estrada brief for appellee contained 13,999 words (leaving one word to spare), and the Phillips reply brief for appellant contained 6,926 words. Each of these briefs is considerably in excess of the new word limits now under consideration for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Earlier installments of this series can be accessed here and here.

“Protesters again disrupt U.S. Supreme Court proceedings”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Protesters disrupt Supreme Court proceedings.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Another brief disruption at the Court.”

Access this blog’s coverage of the proposal to reduce the maximum word length of federal appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words: Today, the Federal Appellate Rules Advisory Committee is holding a public hearing in Washington, DC to receive additional comments on the proposal to reduce the maximum word length of federal appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words, a reduction of greater than ten percent. I will link to news coverage of that hearing when it becomes available.

Via the following links, you can access earlier “How Appealing” coverage of the FRAP word limit reduction proposal, arranged by the titles of the posts to which the links will take you:

Proposal to shorten the maximum length of principal briefs filed in the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 14,000 words to 12,500 words;

How to comment on the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure;

Seventh Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook criticizes the proposal to reduce the word limit for principal appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words;

Senior D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman lauds the proposal to reduce the word limit for principal appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words;

I have decided to OPPOSE the word limit reduction on federal appellate briefs, plus an additional public comment opportunity for you;

How rife of a problem are unnecessarily long federal appellate briefs?;

Who are these irresponsible and unconstrained lawyers inflicting unnecessarily long briefs on the federal appellate courts? (plus a second example also posted the same day);

How did 14,000 words become the limit for principal federal appellate briefs?;

A reader anticipates perhaps the best (and no doubt most impractical) solution to overly long federal appellate briefs — a word limit individually customized to each appeal;

“[T]raditionally the Rules Committees do not amend a rule unless there is a very good reason to do so”;

Some FRAP briefing word limit expansion horror stories from the Third Circuit — your mileage may vary;

I have just submitted my public comment opposing the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions;

Legal writing guru Bryan A. Garner opposes the FRAP briefing word limit reductions;

What’s next in the battle over the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions?; and

From the guy who brought you the 28-day period in which to file post-judgment motions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

All of the public comments (including mine) submitted in connection with the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reduction proposal can be accessed online via this link.

“4th Circuit sends Episcopalians’ federal lawsuit back to a local district judge”: The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“The Supreme Court’s Death Trap”: Linda Greenhouse has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.