“Scott Walker names Rebecca Bradley to Supreme Court”: Patrick Marley And Jason Stein of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have an article that begins, “Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Friday appointed state Appeals Judge Rebecca Bradley to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, strengthening conservative control of the high court and giving Bradley a boost in her bid for a full term in the spring.”

“Gun laws across U.S. in balance as Supreme Court considers Chicago case”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Judicial panel indicates Kane withheld Eakin emails”: Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis have this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Wallace McKelvey of The Harrisburg Patriot-News has an article headlined “Supreme Court justice shared offensive emails with law enforcement officials: Report.”

Terrie Morgan-Besecker of The Scranton Times-Tribune has an article headlined “Judicial Conduct Board confirms new investigation of Supreme Court justice.”

And The Associated Press reports that “PA conduct board opens email probe of Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin amid new disclosures.”

“Argument preview: Defining the jury’s role on death penalty.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

And yesterday, Denniston had a post titled “Argument preview: A new look — maybe — at life sentences for youths.”

“The Justices Are Irked With One Another Over the Death Penalty: Two cases from Kansas bring out their irritation.” Mark Joseph Stern recently had this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

Programming note: Additional posts will appear here on Friday night. During the day Friday, I will be driving from the Philadelphia suburbs to Atlanta, Georgia, where this weekend I will be visiting my son (who will be on fall break from college until next Tuesday), other family, and friends.

As is often the case, while I am away from the computer additional appellate-related posts may appear at this blog’s Twitter feed.

While I’m on the road tomorrow, a stop for lunch is planned in Lexington, Virginia and for an early dinner in Lexington, North Carolina.

Update: I have arrived in Atlanta. Due to the lateness of the hour, however, additional posts will appear here on Saturday morning.

“Downward dog duplication? Relax, yoga poses can’t be copyrighted, court rules.” Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “U.S. court says yoga sequence cannot be copyrighted.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Yoga sequence not entitled to copyright protection.”

And David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “Guru denied copyright protection for Bikram yoga sequence of postures; Brushing teeth, pushing lawnmowers, shaking Polaroids also not copyrightable.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Legal experts decry offensive Eakin emails”: Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer have a news update that begins, “Experts on legal ethics condemned state Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin on Thursday following disclosures that he had sent or received emails that mocked Muslim children as suicide bombers, called Mexicans ‘beaners,’ and joked about domestic-assault victims.”

“Constitution Check: If a particular gun is widely popular, does that put it under the Second Amendment?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

And online yesterday at Bloomberg View, law professor Cass R. Sunstein had an essay titled “How the Gun Lobby Rewrote the Second Amendment.”

“Minnesota Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of Minnesota’s payday lending law; Out-of-state lenders must obey strict Minnesota law”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

Justice David R. Stras wrote yesterday’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

“MBTA’s acceptance, rejection of ads may land before Supreme Court; Free-speech dispute on court’s radar”: Kimberly Atkins of The Boston Herald has this report.

“Erie diocese awaits word from U.S. Supreme Court”: Ed Palattella of The Erie Times-News has this report.

Ninth Circuit holds that a sequence of yoga poses and breathing exercises is not entitled to copyright protection: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision today.

“Report: Oklahoma used wrong drug in January execution.” The Associated Press has this report.

“Appeals court rules for heirs of Santa Claus song composer”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Appeals Court Rules EMI’s ‘Santa Claus Is Coming to Town’ Rights Terminate Next Year; Songwriter’s heirs win hard-fought case over holiday classic.”

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

“A Supreme Court justice’s indecent inbox”: This cover story appears in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News.

And columnist Helen Ubinas has an essay titled “Indecent judicial inboxes are about more than just dirty minds.”

“Enough is a enough on capital punishment”: Mark White and Mark Earley had this op-ed in yesterday’s edition of The Tulsa World.

“Were These Transgender Prisoners Paroled — Or Just Kicked Out? Three prisons were ordered to provide transgender health care; Three prisoners were suddenly set free.” Beth Schwartzapfel has this report online at The Marshall Project.

“Coming Your Way Soon: The Little Book Of Big Appellate Tips!” Dan Klau recently had this post at his “Appealingly Brief!” blog.

“Kane’s release of complaint against Supreme Court justice mirrors leaks in her case”: Terrie Morgan-Besecker has this front page article in today’s edition of The Scranton Times-Tribune.

“Governor Wants To Pack Georgia Supreme Court And Give Republicans A Majority”: Ian Millhiser has this post at ThinkProgress.

“Donald Trump goes to Supreme Court over Menie wind farm; Donald Trump’s challenge to a planned offshore wind farm is being heard at the UK’s Supreme Court”: BBC News has this report.

“Supreme Court Probes Protections in Death-Penalty Cases; Passions run high in arguments devoted to capital punishment”: Jess Bravin has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Bob Dylan and the supremes — Ginsburg and Scalia, that is”: Reuters has this report on an interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that appears today in the Swiss newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung.

“Death Penalty States Face Hurdles in Carrying Out Executions”: Manny Fernandez will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court’s Loss of Prestige: For the first time in a long time, more people disapprove than approve of its performance.” Law professor Eric Posner has this essay online at Slate.

“For Justices, Death Penalty Cases Are Personal”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Justices appear skeptical at reversal of Wichita murderers’ death sentences”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court hears new death penalty arguments.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Obsesses Over Death Again In ‘Wichita Massacre’ Cases; For two hours, the justices grappled with the process of death sentencing.”

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Justices Deeply Divided Over Death Penalty In New Term.”

“Cuozzo Takes IPR Challenge to the Supreme Court”: Dennis Crouch has this post today at the “Patently-O” blog.

You can view the petition for writ of certiorari filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“The rule of necessity thus permits a district judge to hear a case in which he is named as a defendant where a litigant sues all the judges of the district.” Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea issued this interesting opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The opinion discusses both the history and the modern day use of the rule of necessity as applied to judicial recusals.

“Craig’s Attorney Cites Roll Call Report in Appeals Court Case”: Todd Ruger of Roll Call has this report.

“Justices Hear Cases on Death Penalty, Without the Bitterness of June”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court defends contested death penalty verdicts in Kansas.”

And Michael Doyle of McClatchy reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with legal aftermath of ‘Wichita Massacre.’”

“High court weighs 3 death sentences in Kansas cases”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court tackles ‘Wichita Massacre’ death penalty case.”

And Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “Pondering an issue that’s not at stake — or is it?”

“Appeals court throws out Texas flag-desecration law”: Chuck Lindell of The American-Statesman has this news update.

Today’s 6-to-3 ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — that state’s highest court in criminal cases — consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions (here and here).

“U.S. Supreme Court skeptical of Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, Gleason cases; AG Schmidt argued juries understood their role in death sentences”: Justin Wingerter of The Topeka Capital-Journal has this news update.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kansas v. Gleason, No. 14-452.

And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Kansas v. Carr, No. 14-449.