“3 armed men invade home of federal judge and husband, Stan Chesley”: Cameron Knight, Patrick Brennan, Sharon Coolidge, and Dan Horn of The Cincinnati Enquirer have this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “3 arrested after federal judge robbed at gunpoint at home.”

“Supreme Court rejects emergency appeal from California antiabortion group”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“The Death Penalty in Texas and a Conflict of Interest”: Lincoln Caplan has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Judge’s FilmOn Opinion Unsealed: ‘Congress Did Not Consider the Internet in 1976’; A dispute over TV streaming illustrates how judges differ in their approaches to new technologies”: Eriq Gardner recently had this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

Therein, Gardner writes, “Given that both cases are going up on appeal with totally opposing conclusions as to how to fit new technology under old legal standards, it is worth highlighting the primary difference in the judges’ opinions.”

“US Supreme Court to hear case pitting Nevada against California”: Sandra Chereb of The Las Vegas Review-Journal has an article that begins, “A Las Vegas man’s decades-long fight with California’s tax man heads to the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time Monday, with dozens of states anxiously awaiting the outcome.”

“States take closer look at regulatory boards after ruling”: The Associated Press has an article that begins, “States are taking a closer look at boards and commissions regulating everything from dentists to dietitians after the U.S. Supreme Court said some panels could be violating antitrust laws.”

“Dollar General seeks tribal suit ban in Miss. Choctaw case”: The Associated Press has this report.

And The Herald of Everett, Washington reports that “Supreme Court case draws Tulalip’s attention.”

“Supreme Court ruling looms over Florida’s death penalty system”: Steve Bousquet of The Tampa Bay Times has this report.

“Authors side with Apple in e-book price-fixing Supreme Court appeal; Case undermines ‘the very objective of antitrust law — to ensure robust competition'”: David Kravets of Ars Technica has this report.

“Texas Will Lose On Affirmative Action, But Will Supreme Court Outlaw Racial Preferences Entirely?” Daniel Fisher has this post today at Forbes.com.

“Judges Challenges Both Sides in Net Neutrality Case; Three-judge panel could uphold part of regulation and overturn part of it, experts say”: John McKinnon has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

At the “Bits” blog of The New York Times, Cecilia Kang has a post titled “In Net Neutrality Hearing, Judge Signals Comfort With F.C.C.’s Defense.”

Sam Thielman of The Guardian (UK) has an article headlined “Net neutrality has its day in court — with lawyers, Christians and the Cheshire Cat; The decision by the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify internet providers as ‘common carriers’ is being tested in a Washington DC courtroom.”

And Ted Johnson of Variety reports that “FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Challenged in Appeals Court.”

“Strip clubs, sexual commentary were topics of Eakin emails”: In Sunday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mark Fazlollah and Craig R. McCoy will have an article that begins, “In 2009, State Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin exchanged emails with some buddies, including a state prosecutor and a prospective lower-court judge. Among the topics: visits to strip clubs and sexual gibes about female staffers in Eakin’s office.”

In addition, McCoy and Fazlollah have a news update headlined “Sources: Supreme Court has ploy to support Eakin.”