“Supreme Court Backs Companies in EEOC Job-Bias Clash”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Ted Cruz: Anti-Gay Marriage Crusader? Not Always; The Texas senator passed up the chance to argue in a pivotal gay-rights case.” Heidi Przybyla of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Supreme Court Hears Oklahoma Inmates’ Lethal Injection Case”: Erik Eckholm of The New York Times has this news update.

Mark Berman and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post have a news update headlined “Supreme Court hearing about lethal injection procedures turns into heated debate.”

And David McLaughlin and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Drug Tied to Botched Executions Divides U.S. Supreme Court.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955.

“Appealing new trial in Danziger Bridge shootings, government has rough outing”: Andy Grimm of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has a news update that begins, “Justice Department lawyers appealing an adverse ruling in the Danziger Bridge police shootings after Hurricane Katrina faced a skeptical panel of appeals court judges Wednesday, struggling to make the case for reinstating the convictions of five police officers accused in the 2005 shootings of unarmed civilians.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Stern questions in post-Katrina bridge shootings case.”

You can access via this link (76.9 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“In anti-terrorism lawsuits, verdicts are just the first battle”: Dan Levine of Reuters has this report.

“Tension between gay, religious rights plays out at top U.S. court”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court debates challenge to execution drug”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court sharply divided on Oklahoma execution drug.”

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 for a unanimous Court in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, No. 13-1019. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court (except as to Part II of his opinion) in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. No. 13-1499. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a concurring opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which Justice Breyer joined in part. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. And Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. also issued dissenting opinions. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Justices uphold limits on judges’ appeals for campaign cash” and “Court: Judges can review gov’t efforts to settle job bias.”

“Gender Bias Issue Could Tip Chief Justice Roberts Into Ruling for Gay Marriage”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times. In addition, in today’s newspaper, Peter Baker has a news analysis headlined “‘Millennia’ of Marriage Being Between Man and Woman Weigh on Justices.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has an article headlined “Same-sex marriage: Justices look ahead; Some questions in Tuesday’s arguments seemed to be setting up future debates.”

“After Botched Executions, Supreme Court Weighs Lethal Drug Cocktail”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“U.S. judge overturns ‘anguish’ law passed after Abu-Jamal speech”: Ben Finley of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update that begins, “Writing that Pennsylvania’s General Assembly ‘fell woefully short of the mark,’ a federal judge on Tuesday struck down a state law that allowed violent-crime victims to sue offenders over speech that causes ‘mental anguish.'”

Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an article headlined “Pa.’s Mumia Abu Jamal-inspired ‘revictimization’ law is ‘manifestly unconstitutional,’ U.S. judge rules.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge tosses ‘mental anguish’ law aimed at Mumia Abu-Jamal.”

I have posted online the opinion and the order that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued today.

“Judge: Why Didn’t Lawmakers Address Voter ID Concerns?” The Texas Tribune has this report.

And Courthouse News Service reports that “5th Circuit Hears Texas Voter ID Law Dispute.”

You can access via this link (51.4 MB mp3 audio file) the audio from today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Seventh Circuit affirms entry of summary judgment against Palatine, Illinois parking ticket privacy class action suit: Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued this opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As noted in this earlier post, Judge Posner issued a dissent from the en banc Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of this lawsuit in August 2012, and the other Seventh Circuit judge who joined in today’s ruling also dissented from the en banc court’s earlier ruling.

“DC Circ. Grounds Emirates Pilot’s No-Fly List Claims”: Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Federal appeals court tosses Kentucky’s ban on electioneering near polling places”: The Lexington Herald-Leader has this report.

The Cincinnati Enquirer has an article headlined “Appeals court: KY electioneering law unconstitutional.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Federal appeals court upholds ruling that struck down Kentucky’s electioneering law.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Justices rattle both sides on same-sex marriage; In oral arguments, the Supreme Court gives advocates and foes plenty of conflicting signals”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

Meanwhile, in commentary, online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “Loving v. Marriage: Opponents of same-sex unions try to convince the Supreme Court that the state has no interest in ‘love and commitment.’”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “What Justices Are Really Saying About Gay Marriage.”

“Chief Justice Roberts and a crafty ‘solution’ to the gay marriage issue”: Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf has this post today at his “Hercules and the umpire” blog.

And online at The New York Times, law professor Joseph Landau had a pre-argument essay titled “Why Chief Justice John Roberts Might Support Gay Marriage.”

“High court protester has history of disrupting public events”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Feds may ask Supreme Court to reinstate Bonds’ conviction”: The Associated Press has this report.

Update: The Ninth Circuit has posted online at this link the federal government’s motion to stay the mandate filed today.

“Who Owns Pre-Embryos?” Madeleine Schwartz has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Pivotal justice asks tough questions on gay marriage”: David Shepardson, Melissa Nann Burke, and Oralandar Brand Williams of The Detroit News have this report.

Jack Torry of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reports that “Justices show deep divide over same-sex marriage case.”

Amber Hunt of The Cincinnati Enquirer has an article headlined “Obergefell: Husband would’ve ‘hated’ SCOTUS scene; But Arthur still would have been proud of him for being there.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Justices grill lawyers on same-sex marriage.”

The Tennessean reports that “Supreme Court gay marriage case gives participant ‘goosebumps.’”

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that “Gay marriage backers get day in high court.”

And The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that “Key Supreme Court justice doesn’t tip his hand during historic same-sex marriage arguments.”

“History in the balance as divided Supreme Court weighs gay marriage”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report.

Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court asks why it should redefine marriage to include gays.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Justices Deeply Divided Over Same-Sex Marriage Arguments.”

This evening’s broadcast of the PBS NewsHour contained a video segment titled “Supreme Court considers whether it’s time for nationwide same-sex marriage” featuring Marcia Coyle.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Justice Kennedy, hesitant but leaning.” And Mark Walsh has a post titled “A view from the Courtroom, Same-Sex Marriage Edition.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch titled “An Argument for Dignity: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to see a nobility of purpose in gay marriage.”

“While the Oxford Dictionary may include within its definition of ‘lawyer’ one who studies the law, a lawyer’s professional or occupational role in society transcends his prior studies in law school.” The definition of a “lawyer” is a question that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed today in a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion in an election law case.

Today’s opinions provide the explanations promised back on May 5, 2014, when Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a per curiam order and a dissenting statement disposing of the matter under the time pressures then applicable.

At the time of the court’s original ruling, The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania covered the decision in an article headlined “Pa. state Rep. Justin Simmons’ challenger removed from ballot.”

“US Supreme Court to consider challenge to execution drug”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Texas asks appeals court to uphold voter photo ID law”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Judicial Assistants or Junior Judges: The Hiring, Utilization, and Influence of Law Clerks.” In case you missed it (as I did till now), the fall 2014 issue of the Marquette Law Review contains numerous essays and other pieces pertaining to this symposium. In addition, videos from the symposium, which occurred in April 2014, can be accessed here and here.

“America’s must-see TV: Put the Supreme Court on camera so the people can watch their justice system at work.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The New York Daily News.

“Lining Up, Early, for Same-Sex Marriage Arguments at Supreme Court”: Emmarie Huetteman of The New York Times has this report.

Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “On steps of Supreme Court, passionate views on gay marriage face off.”

Paul Singer and Marisol Bello of USA Today report that “Lawyers, activists, students gather for history at Supreme Court.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Colorful crowds gather as Supreme Court weighs gay marriage; Supporters, opponents out in numbers to make their pitch.”

“Supreme Court shows split in hearing on historic in gay-marriage cases”: Robert Barnes and Fred Barbash of The Washington Post have this news update.

David G. Savage and Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “On divided court, Kennedy does not tip his hand on gay marriage case.”

Richard Wolf and Brad Heath of USA Today report that “Justices appear cautious, divided on same-sex marriage.”

Laura Meckler, Brent Kendall, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have a news update headlined “Justices Appear Divided, Cautious on Gay Marriage; Supreme Court weighs extending right to same-sex marriage to entire U.S.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press and Maureen Groppe of The Indianapolis Star report that “Supreme Court questions show same-sex marriage split.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Kennedy Sends Mixed Signals as Supreme Court Debates Gay Marriage.”

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court justices skeptical of redefining marriage.”

Access online the audio from today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (question two): At this link.

“Divided U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with gay marriage case”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this updated report.

Access online the audio from today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (question one): At this link.

“Marriage Equality Arguments First Reaction: Ginsburg Strikes, Kennedy Wavers.” Mark Joseph Stern has this post online at Slate.

“Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

“Ahead of landmark case, tension at SCOTUS”: Amber Hunt of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report, along with an article headlined “Here’s how lawyers prep for SCOTUS hearing.”

The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that “Same-sex marriage gets day in Supreme Court; Knoxville couple among plaintiffs.”

And columnist Brian Dickerson of The Detroit Free Press has an essay titled “Couple forged unlikely path to high court center stage.”