“Lafourche’s chief public defender argues before U.S. Supreme Court”: Houma Today has this report.

“Constitution Check: May lawyers lead a campaign to defy the Supreme Court?” Lyle Denniston had this post Tuesday at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Canada’s senior public officials targeted by little-known corruption law”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine has a front page article that begins, “Canada is preparing to embark on a far-reaching program of financial surveillance of senior public officeholders, from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor-General David Johnston and Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin down to thousands of elected politicians and senior bureaucrats.”

“It’s OK to watch porn at work during your lunch hour, Italy’s highest court rules; Fiat wanted to sack an employee who was caught watching pornographic DVDs on his laptop”: The Telegraph (UK) has this report today.

“Parsing sentence: The Supreme Court considers reversing life sentences handed to minors.” This article will appear in the October 17, 2015 issue of The Economist.

“Black Sisters Endured Relentless Racist Bullying: When they complained, the school called their tormenters’ parents.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued on Tuesday.

“After narrow 2012 loss, death penalty opponents plan 2016 measure”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article that begins, “With public support for capital punishment declining, activists who fell just short of winning a voter repeal of California’s death penalty law in 2012 are preparing for another attempt in November 2016.”

“D.C. judge a formidable foe for Obama’s environmental agenda”: Robin Bravender of Greenwire recently had this profile of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“What Happens to Old Sentences When the Law Changes: The Supreme Court is grappling with the question of ‘retroactivity’ as justices review life sentences for juveniles.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Big Business Could Shut Down Class-Action Suits With One Weird Trick: And the Supreme Court may just fall for it.” Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report today.

“Death-row inmates, including Ballard, win a round in court”: Riley Yates of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has a news update that begins, “A lawsuit by five Pennsylvania death-row inmates questioning the state’s execution method will be allowed to go forward, the Commonwealth Court ruled Thursday in a suit that charges the Department of Corrections improperly changed the drug cocktail it intends to use for lethal injections.”

“Ninth Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman to Assume Senior Status”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today.

“Supreme Court Landmark Case Dred Scott v. Sandford“: C-SPAN has posted the video of Monday night’s broadcast at this link.

“Justices Delve Into Electricity Markets and Class-Action Demands”: 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 articles headlined “Unsolicited text message tees up an unusual debate at the Supreme Court” and “Justices question FERC’s authority on demand response program.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court conservatives question federal rule to cut electricity demand.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has articles headlined “Supreme Court conundrum: How to make a lawsuit go away?” and “Supreme Court doubts federal authority to control peak demand for power.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Text-Message Advertising Case Could Have Larger Implications for Class-Action Suits; Marketer Campbell-Ewald sought to quash a class-action suit by offering the man who would bring it $1,500.”

Robin Bravender of Greenwire reports that “Justices question regulators’ reach in fight over energy rule.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Why the Justices Care About Your Electric Bill.”

“Juvenile Lifers: Will Supreme Court Act Before They Die?” Liliana Segura has this report online at The Intercept.

“What a more interconnected world means for the Supreme Court”: This interview with Justice Stephen G. Breyer appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS NewsHour.

“PA Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin apologizes for emails”: Steve Esack has this front page article in today’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania.

In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis have an article headlined “Eakin on emails: ‘I sincerely apologize.’”

In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News, William Bender has an article headlined “Supreme Court justice apologizes, but questions remain.”

Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Kane, investigators spar over who had access to Supreme Court porn emails.”

Brad Bumsted of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Kane denies not providing court, ethics panel with justice’s emails.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Kane says emails published by newspaper appear authentic.”

“Battle over ownership of rare gold ‘double eagles’ again in court”: Jeremy Roebuck has this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Abortion at the Supreme Court’s Door”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online today at The New York Times.

“Court Rules ‘Hot Yoga’ Isn’t Entitled to Copyright”: This article appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

My earlier coverage of last Thursday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“Supreme Court asked to help inmates serving life for crimes committed as youths”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana reports that “High court hears Baton Rouge case challenging juvenile life sentences; Suit challenges juvenile life sentences.”

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains a front page article headlined “At 40, Juvenile Law Center’s biggest case yet: Seeking second chance for juvenile lifers.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices weigh life sentences for juveniles in murder cases.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: A barrier to deciding juvenile sentencing issue?”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Resentencing For Juvenile Lifers.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch titled “Is Life Retroactive? He was sentenced to life without parole at 17; Fifty years later, the Supreme Court weighs setting him free.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “A Question of What’s Law and What’s Right.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280.

“College athletes ask court to reconsider part of ruling in NCAA pay case”: Dan Levine of Reuters has this report.

“The Death-Penalty Feud at the Supreme Court: The justices weigh a new set of cases and their implications for the Eighth Amendment and lethal injection.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Justices Question Florida’s Death Penalty System”: 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 “Supreme Court hears criminal justice cases, including death penalty rulings.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court skeptical of Florida’s death penalty system.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Weighs Tough Sentencing in Two Cases; Appeals were heard Tuesday over harsh punishments that two convicts contend violate the Constitution.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy DC reports that “Supreme Court confronts Florida death sentence challenge.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices press Florida over death penalty sentencing.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Skeptical Of Judges’ Role In Florida Death Sentencing.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Moral responsibility for death sentences.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Supreme Court dispatch titled “Florida Judges Can Kill You: The state’s perverse death sentencing system is surely unconstitutional — right?”

And at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “Executions in the Sunshine state: Supreme scepticism about Florida’s death penalty.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505.

“Twisted Decision on Yoga Copyright”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Court revives lawsuit over NYPD surveillance of Muslims”: Jeremy Roebuck has this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Reuters reports that “Muslim groups’ lawsuit over N.Y. surveillance revived by court.”

And at Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post titled “Appeals court revives lawsuit over NYPD surveillance of Muslims.”

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

“There is no better symbol of the current judicial confirmation obstruction than Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania.” So writes Michele L. Jawando in an op-ed headlined “Justice denied when judges refused a vote” in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Biden and the Supreme Court”: Online at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a post that begins, “Joe Biden played a more consequential role in the history of the Supreme Court than almost any senator in American history.”

“Appeals Court to Rehear New Jersey Sports Betting Case”: The New York Times has this news update.

The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Appeals court gives New Jersey’s quest for legal sports betting another shot.”

NJ.com reports that “N.J. sports betting case will go before U.S. appeals court again.”

The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey has a news update headlined “Latest twist in N.J. sports betting case gives hope to supporters of Vegas-style wagering.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court to reconsider New Jersey sports betting bid.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “New Jersey’s Christie Can Try Again to Win Sports Bet Law.”

“FERC Energy-Saving Rule Left in Doubt by U.S. High Court Session”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices question Obama administration electricity markets rule.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court seems troubled over energy pricing rule.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: When an empty chair may count the most.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., No. 14-840.

“U.S. justices divided over advertising firm’s class action appeal”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court seems divided in class-action lawsuit case.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857.

“Court again considers fate of seized gold coins worth $80M”: The Associated Press has this report on a rehearing en banc that occurred this morning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

When the audio of today’s Third Circuit rehearing en banc becomes available online, I will link to it.

“New Life For New Jersey Sports Betting Case: Rehearing Granted By Court.” Dustin Gouker has this post at Legal Sports Report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court to reconsider New Jersey sports betting case.”

You can view today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

From the order, it appears that only nine of the Third Circuit’s active judges are not recused from the matter. In addition, the two senior Third Circuit judges who composed the three-judge panel’s majority have elected to participate in the rehearing en banc now that further review has been granted.

Readers may recall that this case pits Paul D. Clement against Theodore B. Olson.

“In Courts, Running Out the Clock on Obama Immigration Plan”: Michael D. Shear and Julia Preston have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Angry GOP Senate freezes out Obama nominees; Jamming up nominations is one of the last weapons the Senate GOP can use to hit back at the administration”: Seung Min Kim and Burgess Everett of Politico.com have this report today.