“9th Circuit orders EPA to act on neurotoxin ban”: Reuters has this report on a mandamus ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Ruling could get man off death row for drug-related killing”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star had this article back in December 2014 reporting on the ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc in the case.

“Argentina Bonds Judge Rebuked in Rare Court Win for Nation”: Bloomberg News has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig exploring White House bid”: Nancy Scola of Politico.com has this report.

And Sam Stein of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Larry Lessig Believes Democracy Is Screwed. So He’s Running For President To Save It. The Harvard legal scholar promised to quit if he passes his reform agenda.”

“Issue of where to move Guantanamo detainees threatens closure plan”: Adam Goldman and Missy Ryan will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Transgender inmate ‘kind of in shock’ about state decision to allow surgery”: Bob Egelko has this blog post today at The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Ohio judges who perform weddings can’t refuse to marry same-sex couples”: The Columbus Dispatch has this news update reporting on an advisory opinion that the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio issued on Friday.

“New or forthcoming books on the Supreme Court, including one by Justice Stephen Breyer”: Ronald Collins has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Industry, States Set to Fight EPA Greenhouse Gas Rules; Lawsuits would challenge rules requiring significant cuts in power-plant carbon emissions”: Brent Kendall and Amy Harder have this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

“Ninth Circuit Gives Unmarried Couples Double The Mortgage Interest Deduction Available To Married Couples”: Paul Caron has this post today at “TaxProf Blog” about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on Friday.

Because a judge sitting by designation from another circuit provided the decisive vote on the three-judge panel, the case could have a better than average chance of attaining rehearing en banc should the IRS opt to pursue that remedy.

“Partisan Attacks on Voting Rights Tested in Court”: Kenneth Jost had this post yesterday at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“D.C. Circuit won’t rehear ‘origination clause’ suit against Obamacare; Plaintiffs will take fight to Supreme Court”: Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has this report.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Health insurance mandate survives again.”

And at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has a post titled “Conservative Federal Judges Wave The White Flag On Obamacare.”

My earlier coverage of Friday’s D.C. Circuit order can be accessed here.

“We consider the constitutionality of a decision to impound a vehicle based on a community-caretaking justification. Such impoundments have been the topic of substantial debate and disagreement among our sibling circuits.” So began a decision that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued on Friday.

“In a first, California agrees to pay for transgender inmate’s sex reassignment”: The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Springfield panhandling ordinance ruled unconstitutional”: Illinois Times has this report on an opinion on panel rehearing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued Friday.

Josh Blackman discusses Friday’s ruling in a blog post titled “7th Circuit Invalidates Anti-Panhandling Ordinances After Reed v. Town of Gilbert.”

“2nd Circuit Withdraws Earlier License Plate Opinion In Light of Supreme Court’s Walker Decision”: Howard Friedman had this post late Saturday night at his “Religion Clause” blog about a summary order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued last Wednesday.

“In this appeal we consider whether a hyperlink to a document containing a forum selection clause may be used to reasonably communicate that clause to a consumer.” So began a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued on Friday. The panel answered the question “yes,” requiring the plaintiff to litigate her case in Canada.

“U.S. ‘supermax’ prison: ‘Alcatraz of the Rockies’ is seen as ‘inhuman and degrading.'” Richard A. Serrano has this front page article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Court Says 4 Catholic Nonprofits Must Allow Workers Access to Contraception”: This article appeared in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times.

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

“Justices speak out about death penalty, but executions go on”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“If Kennedy is looking for a solitary-confinement case, an inmate has one”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“A Limited Victory for Voting Rights in Texas”: Lincoln Caplan had this post online recently at The New Yorker.

“Divided DC Circuit Queues Up New Major Obamacare Case for Possible SCOTUS Review”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog” about today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denying rehearing en banc in Sissel v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., and the lengthy statements concurring in and dissenting from that order.

“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.

“Mortgage lender attacks CFPB’s constitutionality at D.C. Circuit”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.