“Eight Is Enough (Justices That Is): Let the Court Unpack Itself.” Yesterday at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog, Michael Stokes Paulsen had a post that begins, “Brace yourself. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires from the Supreme Court this summer, it will set off a frenzy of Supreme contention: Who will President Obama nominate to replace Ginsburg?”

“Texas religious schools lose appeals court battle over ‘objectionable’ emergency contraception”: Allan Turner of The Houston Chronicle has this report. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

The Associated Press reports that “5th Circuit panel rejects challenge to birth control mandate.”

And at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog, Matthew J. Franck has a post titled “Fifth Circuit Taken in by HHS Peek-a-Boo.”

My earlier coverage of Monday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Dispute over union fees could return to Supreme Court”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

“Governors Seek to Curb Confederate Flag License Plates; Moves follow Charleston mass killing, Supreme Court ruling”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with basing dismissals with prejudice on harmless procedural bobbles.” Yesterday, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued a dissenting opinion that concludes:

The only argument in favor of such summary justice that I can imagine is that by punishing parties for their lawyers’ mistake we improve the quality of the bar; the lawyers who disserve their clients attract fewer new clients and eventually perhaps are forced to leave the practice — an example of the positive effect of competition on the quality of goods and services that a market provides. But while this is plausible in theory, I have to say that in more than 33 years as a federal court of appeals judge I have not noted any improvement in the average quality of the lawyers who appear before us. I find it difficult to believe that punishing Balagiannis and his lawyer by in effect a “fine” of $925,000 will promote the quality of legal representation in the courts of this circuit.

You can access yesterday’s complete Seventh Circuit ruling in the case at this link.

“U.S. appeals court backs claim under state law in Rocky Flats saga”: Reuters has this report.

And Law360.com reports that “10th Circ. Favors Class In $1B Plutonium Dispute” (subscription required for full access).

Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion on behalf of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Pressing the ACA birth-control issue”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Decision anxiously awaited in Supreme Court housing case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

Jeffrey R. Howard is now the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: As noted here and here.

“Copyright Dispute Over Paparazzi Photos Gathers Heat at Appeals Court; The MPAA and Kickstarter are among those duking it out at the 9th Circuit over the implications of website content moderators”: Eriq Gardner has this post today at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“The D.C. Circuit’s Thoroughly Convincing Decision in al-Nashiri“: Steve Vladeck has this post at the “Lawfare” blog about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Court revives challenge to ban on gun sales to Americans visiting from abroad”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court says US citizen abroad can challenge gun ban.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued an opinion.

“New London homeowners won public support, but constitutional argument did not save properties”: The Day of New London, Connecticut has this report.

“Casey and the Clinic Closings”: Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel have this guest post today at “Balkinization.”

“Obama’s Legacy Is at Stake in Supreme Court’s Health Care Ruling”: Michael D. Shear of The New York Times has this news update.

“Court ruling against gay marriage could cause legal ‘chaos'”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And online at Slate, Nathaniel Frank has an essay titled “Why the Last Defense of Same-Sex Marriage Bans Fails.”

“Court orders feds to find and return deported mother and daughter from Guatemala”: Franco Ordonez of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report on a single-judge order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued last Friday.

The order states, in full:

The Court would have granted Petitioners a stay of removal, but was informed that Petitioners were removed earlier today. The government is hereby ordered to use its best efforts to intercept Petitioners when they land tonight in Guatemala City and to return Petitioners to the United States immediately. If the government is unable to intercept Petitioners at the airport, they must locate Petitioners in Guatemala and return them to the United States as quickly as possible. Upon their return, Petitioners are granted a stay of removal pending disposition of their petition for review. If, upon contact, Petitioners inform the government that they do not want to return to the United States, the government shall secure a written memorialization to that effect — even if that writing is in Spanish.

Third Circuit Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee signed the order.

“Supreme Court Sides With Raisin Farmers in Property Rights Case”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “High court rules on web-shooters and raisins, waits on more weighty cases.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “High court rules against raisin board in dispute over setting aside crops to prop up prices.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down New Deal-Era Raisin Price-Support Program; Court: forcing raisin handlers to surrender some crops violates Constitution.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court decision on federal raisin rules likely to reshape industry.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court raisin case a ‘great victory’ for property rights.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Justices rule federal government can’t seize California raisin crops to prop up prices.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules government must compensate farmers over raisin program.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Federal Raisin-Reserve Program Undercut by U.S. High Court.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS NewsHour contained a video segment titled “Rulings on raisins and hotel registries favor individual rights” featuring Marcia Coyle.

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “This California Raisin Grower Just Got His Day In The Sun.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Is the New Deal in new trouble?”

“Justices Rule Police Must Obtain Warrant to Search Hotel or Motel Registries”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High court strikes down L.A. law on motel, hotel registry inspections.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Los Angeles Law on Police Access to Hotel Registers; Justices say without chance to challenge searches, officers could abuse their power.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “U.S. Supreme Court sides with innkeepers on right to privacy.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court sides with privacy rights in Los Angeles hotel case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Hotel-Record Inspection Law Tossed Out by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme court throws out Los Angeles ordinance giving police access to hotel records.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “Do Not Disturb: The Supreme Court rules that police can’t simply force hotels to turn over your private information.”

Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “A Film Noir Trope Is Now Unconstitutional.”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: Did hotel or motel guests just gain more privacy?”

“Justice Sotomayor Hides Good News For Abortion Clinics In An Obscure Case About Hotels”: Ian Millhiser has this post at ThinkProgres.

“Important cases still pending before the Supreme Court (and the decisions so far)”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Supreme Court rules in favor of inmate with excessive force claim”: Adam B. Lerner of Politico.com has this report.

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “After Freddie Gray: The Kingsley decision creates a crucial new constitutional protection against police abuse.”

“Examining Race-Based Admissions Bans On Medical Schools”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“The Roberts Court’s Surprising Move Leftward: This term so far shows potential for a greater percentage of liberal decisions than any since 1969.” “The Upshot” blog has this post in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Affordable Care Act: What to Expect.” Joe Palazzolo had this post yesterday at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“In Spider-Man Toy Patent Case, Supreme Court Stands by Past Decision”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Tucson Spider-Man web blaster inventor loses to Marvel.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court backs Marvel in Spider-Man toy dispute.”

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Brent Kendall has a post titled “Supreme Court Sticks to Precedent in Spider-Man Toy Case.”

Adam B. Lerner of Politico.com reports that “Elena Kagan brings her Spidey sensibility to Supreme Court ruling.”

Cronkite News reports that “Even superheroes have limits: Court turns down Spider-Man toy inventor.”

Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reports that “In Spider-Man toy case, Supreme Court bars payments for expired patents; If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Ted Johnson of Variety reports that “Marvel Wins Supreme Court Dispute Over Spider-Man Toy.”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Marvel Wins Supreme Court Victory Over Spider-Man Toy; The high court decides to stick to a half century old rule that forbids patent holders from collecting royalties after the expiration date of the patent.”

Online at Vanity Fair, Tina Nguyen has a report headlined “Elena Kagan Wrote the Most Pro-Spider-Man Ruling in SCOTUS History; She does whatever a Kagan can.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a post titled “Kagan Cites Spider-Man in Hilarious Supreme Court Decision.”

Paige Lavender of The Huffington Post reports that “Elena Kagan Fills Kimble v. Marvel Opinion With Spider-Man Easter Eggs.”

At the “Reliable Source” blog of The Washington Post, Emily Heil has an entry titled “Look out RBG: Elena Kagan might be pop culture’s new favorite justice.”

Frank Pallotta of CNN Money reports that “Justice Kagan weaves web of puns in Spider-Man patent case; With great patent cases, come great Supreme Court puns.”

At msnbc.com, Steve Benen reports that “Justice Kagan’s nerd credibility soars.”

And at “Patently-O,” Jason Rantanen has a post titled “Supreme Court Declines to Overrule Brulotte.”

“Supreme Court Denies Bernie Madoff Trustee Appeal in Clawback Case; Court won’t consider a bid to claw back money from investors who profited from Ponzi scheme”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on veterans’ rights in business.”

“Exposing class action objectors: Lieff Cabraser, Ted Frank in ‘lurid’ dispute.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Justices Put Check on Police in Ferguson Era”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Federal Court Vehemently Rejects Latest Challenge to the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate”: Mark Joseph Stern has this report online at Slate about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote the opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“A ‘view’ from the Courtroom: A web of intrigue as the Term winds down.” Mark Walsh has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Stories of love, life, death in high court gay marriage case”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“At U.S. top court, when justices take the bench, it’s story hour”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report today.

“The Supreme Court and the Art of Saving the Best Opinions For Last”: Brent Kendall has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in four argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 13-720. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. And Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, No. 14-6368. Justice Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. And Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Kagan joined. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court strikes down raisin program as unconstitutional“; “High court voids routine police check of hotel registries“; and “High court rules against Spider-Man toy inventor.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes down federal raisin program as unconstitutional“; “Justices block police searches of hotel registries“; and “Supreme Court cuts the string on Spider-Man toy inventor’s patent.”