“How America Tolerates Racism in Jury Selection”: Online at The New York Times, Larry D. Thompson has an op-ed that begins, “On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Foster v. Chatman, a case that challenges the all-too-common practice by which prosecutors deliberately exclude African-Americans from criminal juries.”

“Get to know the candidates for state Supreme Court”: LancasterOnline, the web site of the newspaper LNP, has posted these video interviews with the seven candidates for Pennsylvania’s highest court.

Also today, LNP’s editorial board endorsed Christine Donohue, Judith Olson, and David Wecht in an editorial titled “Our choices for state Supreme Court in Tuesday’s election.”

“Producer of parody ‘Point Break Live!’ wins $250K in damages: court.” The New York Daily News has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court rules in favor of ‘Point Break’ parody creator.”

Courthouse News Service has a report headlined “Copyright Victory for ‘Point Break’ Stage Spoof.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Appeals Court Rules ‘Point Break’ Parody Is Entitled to Copyright Protection.”

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

“The power of a Supreme Court dissent”: Law professor David Cole has this review of Melvin I. Urofsky‘s new book, “Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue,” online at The Washington Post.

“6 Reasons Why Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Supreme Court Election Is Absolutely Crucial: The stakes? School funding; Gun control; Redistricting; And so much more.” Patrick Kerkstra has this post today at the “Citified” blog of Philadelphia Magazine.

“The Supreme Court Takes On the All-White Jury; The high court on Monday will confront a sordid history of juror suppression”: Spencer Amdur has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Stalled Legal Process Threatens Obama’s Executive Actions On Immigration”: Richard Gonzales had this audio segment on Wednesday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Wetland case seen as ‘no-brainer’ for Supreme Court review”: Robin Bravender of Greenwire has this report today.

“Argument preview: ‘Series qualifier’ and ‘last antecedent’ canons battle over statutory interpretation.” Evan Lee has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices to review reach of US gun ban for domestic violence.”

“Conforming the immigration laws Congress enacted with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, we conclude that Morales‐Santana is a citizen as of his birth.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued this important derivative citizenship ruling that extends to unwed fathers the same benefits that unwed mothers receive under federal law.

“2 Congressmen Propose Barring U.S. Prosecutors From Reading Inmates’ Emails to Lawyers”: Stephanie Clifford has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Scalia’s favorite opinion? You might be surprised.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this blog post today.

“As described in the User’s Guide, only the appearance of the Notice of Electronic Filing screen would have confirmed that the notice of appeal was actually filed and docketed.” Another CM/ECF notice of appeal non-filing horror story, courtesy today of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“Little Sisters of the Poor wait for Supreme Court on Obamacare”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“How Prejudiced Prosecutors Create All-White Juries: Finally, one got caught using blatant racism.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“Panhandling laws face challenge after church signs ruling”: The Associated Press has this report.

“There’s No Evidence In Clinton White House Documents For Clintons’ Story On Anti-Gay Law; Talking to people about the Defense of Marriage Act today — in a political climate that is much more supportive of LGBT rights — is very different than examining what those people actually wrote and discussed in 1996”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Judge: Obama appointees bring no big shift to D.C. Circuit.” Josh Gerstein of Politico.com today has a blog post that begins, “President Barack Obama’s installation of four new judges on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals over a period of less than a year hasn’t resulted in a dramatic shift in the outcome of cases, one of the new judges said Thursday night.”

Attention Tenth Circuit — In a ruling issued yesterday, the Fifth Circuit noted the superiority of Texas over Oklahoma in college football: Yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a published opinion written by Circuit Judge Gregg Costa that begins, “In addition to their well-known disagreements over boundaries and football, Texas and Oklahoma do not see eye to eye on a less prominent issue: covenants not to compete.”

A footnote to the opening sentence’s mention of football reads, “The authoring judge cannot help but note that the University of Texas leads the University of Oklahoma 61-44-5 in the Red River Rivalry. See Red River Showdown, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Showdown (last modified Oct. 12, 2015, at 3:24 PM).” Finally a cite to Wikipedia in a judicial opinion as to which all of Texas can be proud.

And speaking of Wikipedia, although Judge Costa was born in Baltimore, he grew up in Texas and received his J.D. in 1999(!) from the University of Texas School of Law.

Now the proverbial football is squarely back in the court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to assert Oklahoma’s superiority over Texas in something. The internet, not surprisingly, offers some ideas (see here and here).

“No Right to Complain”: Today at Inside Higher Ed, Scott Jaschik has a post that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled, 2 to 1, that five psychologists who wrote a memo criticizing the management of the counseling center at Georgia State University lacked First Amendment protections in their grievance.”

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

“Allen Stanford loses appeal of Ponzi scheme conviction”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.