“Apple asks U.S. Supreme Court to toss e-books antitrust decision”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“U.S. court will not halt NSA phone spy program before ban”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Court rejects ACLU’s request to stop phone record collection.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Appeals court won’t block last month of NSA phone surveillance program.”

And David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “Court says it’s legal for NSA to spy on you because Congress says it’s OK.”

And at the “Just Security” blog, Steve Vladeck has a post titled “Section 215 and ‘Fruitless’ (?!?) Constitutional Adjudication.”

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

Update: In other coverage, Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports that “N.S.A. Won’t Be Ordered to Stop Bulk Collection Early.”

“A ‘Harry Potter’ Defense of Affirmative Action”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

You can access at this link the merits Brief for Respondents that the University of Texas at Austin filed on Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Fisher case.

“Supreme Court faces new challenges to Obamacare’s ‘contraceptive mandate'”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age”: Erik Eckholm has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

And today, Harvard Law School issued a news release titled “Harvard Law School Launches ‘Free the Law’ Project with Ravel Law To Digitize US Case Law, Provide Free Access.”

“Constitution Check: Do individual rights stop at the U.S. border?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Zimmer Ruling Continues Pa. Justices’ Pro-Plaintiff Trend”: Dan Packel has this article (subscription required for full access) in which I am quoted at Law360.com.

My earlier coverage of the ruling can be accessed here.

“Huge Sums Are Pouring Into Judicial Elections, But That Would Never Affect the Courts, Right? A new report shows that the flood of independent spending in judicial races across the country continues to head skyward.” AJ Vicens of Mother Jones has this report today.

“Let’s not make a deal”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an editorial that begins, “Is the silence emanating from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the sound of another backroom deal? It’s been about a month since Justice J. Michael Eakin’s dirty emails began seeping into public view like so much untreated waste, but the high court and judicial disciplinary officials have yet to muster anything like a convincing response.”

“Why the death penalty might come to an end”: Minnesota Public Radio has this report.

“Church, State, and the Supreme Court’s Moment of Truth”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Mystery donor group fuels attack ads in PA Supreme Court race”: Eric Holmberg of PublicSource has this report today.

“Obama Administration Supports Transgender Student In Federal Appeals Court”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Is There a Silver Lining to Citizens United?” Thomas B. Edsall has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Court: Evangelists’ pig’s-head slurs deserved protection.” Tresa Baldas of The Detroit Free Press has this news update.

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Christian evangelists win Michigan speech case over Arab festival.”

And at The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Sixth Circuit rejects ‘heckler’s veto’ as to anti-Islam speech by ‘Bible Believers.’”

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Sixth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Judge Critical of Past FCC Net Neutrality Efforts Draws Latest Case”: Brent Kendall has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

“When Is It Constitutional to Purge Black Jurors? As the U.S. Supreme Court considers Foster, the standards that govern peremptory challenges are back on the table.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Bin Laden Memos Distort the Laws of War”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Ted Cruz Vs. Margaret Sanger’s Portrait”: Amy Davidson has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Making Insider Trading Legal”: Patrick Radden Keefe has this post online at The New Yorker.

“How 4 Federal Lawyers Paved the Way to Kill Osama bin Laden”: Charlie Savage will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

“SAC’s Martoma seeks reversal of U.S. insider trading conviction”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has a report that begins, “A U.S. appeals court wrestled on Wednesday with whether a recent appellate ruling that limited the scope of insider trading laws meant that the 2014 conviction of former SAC Capital Advisors portfolio manager Mathew Martoma should be reversed.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “SAC’s Mathew Martoma Seeks Freedom in Appeals Court Bid.”

“Appeals court rules more immigrants should get bond hearings”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Courthouse News Service reports that “Bond Hearings Ordered for Long ICE Holds.”

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

“Anti-Muslim group wins appeal in Arab fest case”: Robert Snell of The Detroit News has an update that begins, “Christian evangelists who were kicked out of an Arab-American street festival in 2012 after carrying a pig’s head and telling Dearborn Muslims they would ‘burn in hell’ won their federal appeal Monday and will be awarded damages.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Christian activists win speech case tied to Arab festival.”

You can access today’s divided ruling* of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — in which the judges’ alignment cannot be characterized as along political lines — at this link.

—

* The en banc court’s vote was 8-to-5 when considering only the votes of those judges who joined fully in the majority opinion or who joined fully only in one or more dissenting opinions. Two additional judges joined the majority opinion in part and dissented in part. Their votes caused the Sixth Circuit to be divided 10-to-5 in certain respects and 9-to-6 or 8-to-7 in other respects. Should my vote counting be viewed as not merely cursory but inaccurate, readers are invited to share their more careful analysis of the en banc court’s voting breakdown.

“Justice Kennedy says officials must follow law or resign”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

I previously linked to the YouTube video of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s recent Harvard Law School remarks in a post you can access here.

“Don’t Baby Law School Applicants”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Tony Williams: Justice Eakin should resign.” William Bender has this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News.

“Guantanamo court considers replacing 9/11 suspect’s lawyer”: Reuters has this report.

“FAN 82 (First Amendment News) Smolla & Abrams to file First Amendment brief in Redskins trademark case”: Ronald K.L. Collins has this post today at “Concurring Opinions.”

“Justice Ginsburg’s Warning To A Dysfunctional Nation”: Ian Millhiser has this post today at ThinkProgress.

“Pa. Justices Say $20M Zimmer Verdict Was Wrongly Voided”: Beth Winegarner of Law360.com has this report.

Yesterday’s 3-to-2 ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consisted of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

What multiple of 17 are you? Starting today, for me the answer to that question begins with a 3.

And to think, it only took until my 51st birthday for me to realize that I share the same birthday as the Statue (or, as lawyers are wont to say, Statute) of Liberty. [Update: The original version of this post either contained a typo or else I was really intent on proving the point of the preceding parenthetical. In any event, thanks to those many readers who emailed to draw the typo to my attention.]

“Constitution Check: Is Obamacare headed for new trouble?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Adam Liptak and Steven Mazie: The 10 Toughest Cases of the 2014-15 Term.” Although I am fortunate to have a ticket to attend this National Constitution Center event today at noon eastern time, the weather in Philadelphia today is dreadful.

Fortunately, the program will be live-streamed on YouTube via this link beginning at noon eastern time today.

“A Black Hole for Americans’ Rights Abroad”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

And at his “The Narrowest Grounds” blog, Asher Steinberg has a post titled “Nothing Plus Nothing Is Nothing: How the D.C. Circuit Got Bivens Wrong.”