“Maine’s high court spurns LePage in veto dispute; The Maine Supreme Judicial Court says the governor misread the Maine Constitution as it rules in favor of the Legislature in a dispute over 65 new laws”: The Portland Press Herald has this news update.

Reuters reports that “Maine court upholds 65 new laws after governor misses veto deadline.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Maine court: 65 bills are law after LePage misses deadline.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine at this link.

“Elmo Accuser Acted Too Late on Teen Sex Claims”: Courthouse News Service has this report today on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“The Supreme Court’s Gap on Race and Juries”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online today at The New York Times.

“Native Americans lose fight for long hair in prisons”: The Associated Press has this report on a per curiam decision and a slightly revised reinstated ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Appeals Court Ruling Sets Higher Bar for Cellphone Searches; Federal agents violated suspects’ rights in obtaining records without a warrant”: Joe Palazzolo has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “US court says warrant needed for mobile phone location data.”

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court rules warrant required for cellphone tracking.”

David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “Warrant required for mobile phone location tracking, US appeals court rules; Fed’s position would ‘convert an individual’s cell phone into a tracking device.’”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has posts titled “Fourth Circuit adopts mosaic theory, holds that obtaining ‘extended’ cell-site records requires a warrant” and “When and how will the Supreme Court enter the cell-site fray?”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Abortion and the law: The eighth circuit court embarrasses itself.” Steven Mazie had this post yesterday at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Supreme Court Bar Engages in Some Back-Scratching”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“SCOTUSblog on camera: Walter Dellinger (Part two).” This post, the second of five parts, appeared yesterday at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Texas ID Law Called Breach of Voting Rights Act”: Erik Eckholm has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Appeals Court Rules Texas Voter-ID Law Must Be Relaxed; Fifth Circuit says current requirements illegally obstruct blacks and Hispanics from voting.”

Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. appeals court declares Texas voter ID law discriminatory.”

Reuters reports that “Appeals court strikes down ‘discriminatory’ Texas voter ID law.”

The Associated Press has reports headlined “Federal court says Texas voter ID violates Voting Rights Act” and “How latest federal court ruling affects Texas’ voter ID law.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Voter ID Law Found to Discriminate Against Minorities.”

Ryan J. Reilly and Samantha Lachman of The Huffington Post report that “Federal Appeals Court Rules Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act; The law is one of the nation’s strictest.”

The Texas Tribune has a report headlined “Court: Texas Voter ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act.”

And today at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Texas voter ID law ruled invalid — in part.”

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

“Senate splits town, leaves judicial nominees hanging”: Al Kamen of The Washington Post has this entry today at his “In the Loop” blog.

Programming note: Due to a meeting out of the office this morning on a new case, additional posts will not appear here until this afternoon.

As always, in the interim, additional appellate-related news may appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.