“Supreme Court denies request for new trial in defamation case against Citizens’ Voice”: The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania has this report.

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

“Federal class-action reform effort courts serious risks”: Daniel Karon has this essay online at The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

“Roberts talks leadership in discussion on Supreme Court”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

And at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Jess Bravin has a post titled “Chief Justice John Roberts on taking on a Democratic President (FDR).” You can freely access the full text of the blog post via Google.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Clerking, D.C. Circuit Edition.” Aaron Nielson has this post today at the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Appeals court upholds 30-year prison term for Montana woman in newlywed case”: The Billings Gazette has this report.

Reuters reports that “Montana bride who pushed husband off cliff loses appeal.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds sentence for wife who pushed husband off cliff.”

You can access Thursday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Harvard ‘black tape’ vandalism brings law school’s controversial past to fore; Tape placed over portraits of tenured black faculty comes after similar ‘art-action’ by black students attempting to draw attention to school seal’s slavery roots”: The Guardian (UK) has this report today.

And in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, Jess Bidgood had an article headlined “Tape Found Over Portraits of Black Harvard Professors.”

Access yesterday’s “Adult-Oriented Establishments” ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: You can access yesterday’s ruling, involving a challenge to a portion of the municipal code of Milford, Connecticut, at this link.

“The metadata collection program is constitutional (at least according to Judge Kavanaugh)”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a concurrence in the denial of an emergency petition for rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.

“Pa. Supreme Court’s tarnished rep tough on sole female justice”: Brad Bumsted has this front page article in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

“Chief Justice Likely Helped Set Stage For Nationwide Marriage Equality Decision”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report today.

Geidner also has written a related law review article titled “Cert. Denied, Stays Denied, Marriage Equality Advanced: How the Supreme Court Used Nonprecedential Orders to Diminish the Drama of the Marriage Equality Decision.”

Only approximately three months until pitchers and catchers report: In an opinion that Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, he observes that “[t]he risk that [the plaintiff’s child] would be subject to another such search is no more ‘actual and imminent’ than the Chicago Cubs (or, we fear, the Cleveland Indians) winning the World Series.”

Of course, the Cubs came a little closer than usual this year to making the World Series, so this bulletin-board material may be just the additional motivation the team needs to win it all in 2016. Which is much more than I can say for my own hometown team, the Philadelphia Phillies.

USDOJ obtains rehearing en banc in Detroit Free Press access-to-mugshots case: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.

My earlier coverage of the Sixth Circuit’s three-judge panel’s per curiam ruling that preserved media access to the mugshots in question can be accessed here.

“Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Save Immigration Plan”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Obama takes immigration leniency plan to the Supreme Court.”

David G. Savage and Molly Hennessy-Fiske of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “Obama administration asks Supreme Court to reverse order blocking president’s immigration plan.”

Kevin Johnson and Richard Wolf of USA Today report that “Obama administration appeals immigration ruling to Supreme Court.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Reinstate Immigration Policy; Courts have blocked plan to allow illegal immigrants with U.S.-citizen or resident children to avoid deportation.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Obama asks Supreme Court to save his immigration plan.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Obama administration asks top court to revive immigration plan.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Lawyers Ask Supreme Court to Revive Immigration Plan.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Obama administration asks Supreme Court to approve executive amnesty.”

Seung Min Kim and Josh Gerstein of Politico.com report that “Obama administration takes immigration battle to Supreme Court; A Supreme Court ruling on an issue as politically explosive as immigration could be a potential grenade in the 2016 presidential elections.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Obama Administration Seeks Supreme Court Action on Immigration.”

Cristian Farias and Elise Foley of The Huffington Post report that “Obama Administration Takes Deportation Relief For Millions To Supreme Court; President Barack Obama first announced the program exactly one year ago.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Obama Administration Files Appeal in Immigration Case.”

Jordan Fabian of The Hill reports that “Obama appeals immigration ruling to Supreme Court.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S. appeals on immigration policy.”

You can view the Obama Administration’s petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“Kagan Discusses Statutory Interpretation at Law School”: Jonathan Adler (yes, it’s a fairly common name) of The Harvard Crimson has this report.

“Convicted spy Pollard released from US custody, gov’t says”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Adjusting IQ Scores so More Minorities Are Eligible for the Death Penalty”: Law professor Sherry F. Colb has this essay today at Justia.com’s Verdict.

“Consumers lose U.S. appeal over credit card arbitration clauses”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a summary order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.

“Court allows undocumented women to join Obama immigration appeal”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Former Mississippi student who was suspended for posting rap song online has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court”: The Student Press Law Center has this report on a petition for writ of certiorari recently filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court Justice Eakin calls for porn inquiry to move to disciplinary court”: Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

And Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “Justice Eakin: Email inquiry should be heard in public.”

Also today, in coverage of a related development, Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “Judges: Porngate emails not public record.”

Karen Langley of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Pa. court says porn emails aren’t public records under state law.”

Steve Esack of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Court: Kathleen Kane can release porn emails even if they are not ‘public’ records.”

And Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a report headlined “AG Kathleen Kane not required to release porn emails, appeals court rules.”

You can access today’s 5-to-2 ruling of an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Greenhouse Talks ‘He Said, She Said’ Journalism”: In today’s edition of The Harvard Crimson, Mia C. Carr has an article that begins, “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former Crimson editor Linda J. Greenhouse ’68 gave the second of three lectures in her series ‘Just a Journalist: Reflections on Journalism, Life, and the Spaces Between’ on Wednesday.”

You can learn more about the lecture series at this link.

In what may seem like an ironic twist to followers of the U.S. Supreme Court, the full title of the lecture series featuring Greenhouse is the “William E. Massey, Sr., Lectures in American Studies at Harvard University.”

William E. Massey, Sr., before retiring, served as CEO of the A.T. Massey Coal Company, which years later was the very same company involved in the U.S. Supreme Court’s judicial election fundraising recusal case involving a justice on the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia captioned Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.

In addition, Don Blankenship served as CEO of A.T. Massey Coal Co., later renamed Massey Energy, from 2000 until 2010. Earlier today, the federal district judge presiding over Blankenship’s criminal trial ordered the jury to continue deliberations.

“Police Investigate Vandalism on Portraits of Black Law Professors; Harvard Law School Dean Minow says racism is a ‘serious problem’ at the school”: Andrew M. Duehren of The Harvard Crimson has this news update.

And Steve Annear of The Boston Globe has a news update headlined “Tape found on portraits of black Harvard law professors.”

“NFL-players concussion settlement challenged in federal appeals court”: Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this news update.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Lawyers: NFL concussion deal excludes central brain injury.”

When the audio of this morning’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit becomes available online, I will link to it.

Update: In other coverage, Reuters reports that “Some ex-NFL players seek to re-work $1 bln concussion settlement.”

Programming note: On Thursday, two separate cases on which I am working will be argued before the same three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and (as noted in this post from earlier today) I will be presenting a portion of the oral argument in one of them. As a result, additional posts will appear here Thursday afternoon.

In the interim, appellate-related developments may appear on this blog’s Twitter feed, which is now approaching 5,000 followers.

“If past is prelude, SCOTUS will just tinker in this term’s class action cases”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Pa. High Court Favors Workers In Noncompete Ruling”: Dan Packel of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

The ruling consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion.

The ruling is of particular interest to me because it provides additional support for my clients’ position in an appeal I will be arguing on December 2, 2015 in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

“Supreme Court grants resentencing to man convicted of East Liberty murder”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update that begins, “A man convicted of beating a woman into a coma in East Liberty in 1993 — and then convicted of third-degree murder when she died of her injuries in 2007 — could go free following a resentencing hearing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Wednesday.”

And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “State top court rules man in 1993 beating death must be resentenced.”

Between the time that the defendant committed the criminal acts and the victim’s resulting death some 14 years later, the legislature increased the penalty for the degree of murder that the defendant was later convicted of committing. The question presented was whether the sentencing range in effect at the time the criminal acts were committed or the increased sentencing range in effect when the victim died should apply.

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion, two concurring opinions (here and here), and a dissenting opinion.

“A Practitioner’s Five-Point Plan to Improve the Pa. Supreme Court”: This new installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appeared in last Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

You can freely access the full text of the column via Google News.

“Supreme Court refuses to kill Pa.’s ‘wrongful birth’ law”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

And Dan Packel of Law360.com reports that “Pa. High Court Affirms Law Banning ‘Wrongful Birth’ Suits” (subscription required for full access).

My earlier coverage of today’s Pa. Supreme Court ruling can be accessed here.

“Opponents of Christo’s Over The River art project make last legal stand; U.S. Court of Appeals hears oral arguments it case challenging Bureau of Land Management’s 2011 approval plan to drape Arkansas River in fabric”: Jason Blevins of The Denver Post has this news update reporting on a case argued today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

And The Associated Press reports that “Opponents ask federal appeals court to throw out permission for Christo’s Over the River work.”

“A Conversation with Justice Sonia Sotomayor”: The video of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s conversation yesterday afternoon with Dean Wendy Perdue at the University of Richmond School of Law can be viewed online, on-demand at this link.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rejects “single subject” challenge to law banning wrongful birth and wrongful life suits, holding that challenge arose too long after enactment of the legislation: You can access today’s unanimous ruling of Pennsylvania’s highest court at this link.

“Americans deeply split on abortion as Supreme Court takes case: Reuters/Ipsos poll.” Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Campus Unrest and the Fisher Affirmative Action Case”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at Justia.com’s Verdict.

And today at his “Dorf on Law” blog, he has a related post titled “Diversity and Remediation.”

“The Stealth Corporate Takeover of the Supreme Court: Three cases under consideration show how Big Business is using the court to tilt the law in its favor.” Simon Lazarus has this article online today at the New Republic.