“A Little Walmart Gift Card for You, a Big Payout for Lawyers”: This business column appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Inside Traders Look to U.S. Supreme Court for Redemption”: Patricia Hurtado and Greg Farrell of Bloomberg News have this report.

“SC Supreme Court race: Lawmakers fishing for anti-Abbeville sentiment? Associate justice candidates were questioned on Supreme Court’s Abbeville school funding case; Judge John Few’s answers might have signaled he believes Supreme Court overreached in Abbeville case; Legislature to vote Wednesday on next associate justice.” The State of Columbia, South Carolina has this report.

“Setback in S.F. for abortion opponent facing charges in Texas”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article that begins, “An antiabortion activist, charged with committing crimes against Planned Parenthood in Texas, suffered another legal setback in San Francisco on Friday when a federal judge refused to let him disclose clandestinely made recordings of abortion providers in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Diversify Pennsylvania’s court system: The email scandal shows how courts in this state remain in the hands of the good-old-boy network.” Anisha Singh and Jodi Hirsh have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“Supreme Court sets date for birth-control mandate showdown; Justices will hear from nuns, other nonprofits on March 23”: Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has this report.

“Women made up majority of sitting judges on Nebraska Supreme Court for brief, historic moment”: Paul Hammel of The Omaha World-Herald has an article that begins, “Quietly, with no fanfare, the Nebraska Supreme Court reached a historic, if temporary, milestone earlier this month when a majority of the sitting judges were female.”

“None to the Right of Samuel Alito: A decade into his tenure on the Court, Samuel Alito has emerged as the most solidly conservative justice on the bench.” Tom Donnelly and Brianne Gorod have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Ted Cruz Promises To Create The Most Right-Wing Supreme Court In History”: Emily Atkin of ThinkProgress has this report.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Brooding Spirits.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Loosening money’s grip on elections: How to change the billionaire-dominated campaign finance landscape, 40 years after Buckley vs. Valeo.” Law professor Rick Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The New York Daily News.

For readers who, like me, are located in the Philadelphia region, Hasen will be speaking at the National Constitution Center at noon eastern time on Thursday, February 18, 2016. I am looking forward to seeing him then.

“State seeks to preserve lifetime GPS monitoring of sex offender”: Earlier this month, Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had an article that begins, “Wisconsin tried Friday to persuade a federal appeals court to reverse a judge’s decision that lifetime GPS monitoring of some sex offenders violates the constitution.”

Also earlier this month, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that “Lifetime GPS Monitoring Of Sex Offenders At Issue In Federal Case; State Argues To Appeals Court That Lifetime Monitoring Isn’t A Form Of Punishment.”

And The Associated Press reported earlier this month that “Court considers challenge to lifetime GPS monitoring for some sex offenders in Wisconsin.”

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion holding that a Wisconsin law that requires lifetime GPS monitoring of a formerly civilly committed sex offender, who committed multiple sex offenses against children, neither violates the Fourth Amendment nor constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto law. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote the majority opinion. And Circuit Judge Joel M. Flaum issued an opinion concurring in the judgment.

The appeal was orally argued on January 8, 2016. You can access the oral argument audio via this link (17.9 MB mp3 audio file). And the Wisconsin Department of Justice has posted online the opposing parties’ principal briefs here and here.

“Appeals court: Sign restriction violated free-speech rights.” The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“The Votes of Other Judges”: Law professors Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule have posted this paper online at SSRN.

“Law Blogging Is Not ‘Journalism'”: S.M. Oliva has this blog post today.

My two recent related posts can be accessed here and here.

“Texas’ Devious Plan To Silently Kill Roe v. Wade”: Ian Millhiser had this post yesterday at ThinkProgress discussing the Brief for Respondents that Texas recently filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case captioned Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, No. 15-274.

“Court reinstates Kountze cheerleader religious-message lawsuit”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has an article that begins, “In a case that has become a rallying cry for leading state Republicans and conservative Christians, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday reinstated a lawsuit by Kountze cheerleaders seeking to protect their use of religious messages during football games.”

Bobby Blanchard of The Dallas Morning News has a blog post titled “Texas high court reinstates lawsuit over cheerleaders with religious messaging.”

Reuters reports that “Texas Supreme Court sides with cheerleaders on ‘Bible banners.’”

The Associated Press reports that “Texas top court sides with cheerleaders in Bible banner suit.”

And The Texas Tribune reports that “Cheerleader Case Can Proceed, State Supreme Court Rules.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consisted of the opinion of the court and two concurring opinions (here and here).

“Justice Alito after Ten Years: First Amendment Coherence?” Erica Goldberg has this post today at her “In A Crowded Theater” blog.

“Appeals court revives Holocaust suit against Hungary”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“‘Notorious RBG’ wows wide-eyed Brandeis crowd”: Bob McGovern, legal columnist for The Boston Herald, has this essay online today.

And at The Huffington Post, Peter Dreier has a blog entry titled “A Century Ago, Louis Brandeis Beat Big Business and Anti-Semites, and Revitalized American Democracy.”

“Tsarnaev lawyers file appeal of Boston Marathon bombing conviction”: Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Lawyers for Boston Marathon bomber file notice of appeal.”

“Final Senate Action on U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations During a President’s Eighth Year in Office”: The Congressional Research Service on Wednesday posted online this report written by Barry J. McMillion.

“Puhl nominated to replace Kermit Bye on appeals court”: Patrick Springer of The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota has an article that begins, “President Obama on Thursday nominated Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl, a career federal prosecutor based here, to fill a vacancy on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Yesterday, the White House issued a news release titled “President Obama Nominates Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals.”

“SCOTUS associate justice speaks to UF law students”: Melissa Gomez of The Independent Florida Alligator, the student newspaper of the University of Florida in Gainesville, has an article that begins, “A bomb-sniffing dog searched Stephany Ashton’s class Wednesday morning, and she was asked to hand over her cell phone. These safety measures were taken because Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas gave a guest lecture.”

By contrast, W. Kent Fuchs, the president of the University of Florida, did capture a video featuring Justice Thomas on his cell phone.

“James Ridgeway’s Solitary Reporting”: Jennifer Gonnerman has this post online at The New Yorker. Therein, she writes, “there may be no reporter in the United States who has collected more stories of solitary-confinement prisoners than the veteran investigative reporter James Ridgeway.”

“Death-row inmate’s case targets Georgia’s strict secrecy law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Lawyers for an inmate set to die in days are asking a conflicted federal appeals court to weaken Georgia’s law that keeps secret the source of the state’s lethal injection drug. It’s the toughest of a number of secrecy laws passed in recent years by death penalty states eager to stabilize their execution drug supplies.”

“Bill to abolish Delaware death penalty fails in House; Lawmakers reject proposal to end capital punishment, although motion may be filed to reintroduce legislation”: Jessica Masulli Reyes has this front page article in today’s edition of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware.

And The Associated Press reports that “Delaware House rejects legislation to abolish death penalty.”

“Scandal-driven turnover prompts Pa. high court to take fresh look at outstanding cases”: Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this report.

And The Scranton Times-Tribune has an editorial titled “Dysfunction current, justice late.”

“Constitution Check: Does the ‘Clean Power Plan’ violate the Tenth Amendment?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

And on Tuesday at that blog, Denniston had a post titled “Constitution Check: Is there a basic flaw in campaign finance law?”

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at Brandeis, lauds school’s namesake”: Travis Andersen of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Louis D. Brandeis, The Supreme Court and American Democracy”: Brandeis University has posted online at this link the video from this evening’s event featuring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This evening’s program was the first of a series of events at the university to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the nomination and confirmation of Louis D. Brandeis to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today is the 100th anniversary to the day of Justice Brandeis’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

The January 29, 1916 issue of The New York Times contained this article reporting on the nomination.

“Missouri Paid Executioners $250,000 In Cash, Possibly Violating Tax Law; The state pays its small team of executioners in cash to limit the paper trail; The state isn’t sending proper paperwork to the IRS — experts told BuzzFeed News that it could be contributing to tax evasion”: Chris McDaniel of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Arizona governor wants to split 9th Circuit Court of Appeals”: The Associated Press has this report. My earlier coverage can be accessed here.

“White House: Obama doesn’t want to serve on Supreme Court.” The Associated Press has this report.

In reader mail regarding the new “SCOTUSblog” policy of “Just the facts, ma’am“: In response to this post of mine from last night, another law-related blogger who has for quite some time been following the “SCOTUSblog” conflict policy saga with interest has emailed these thoughts:

I frankly don’t understand SCOTUSBlog’s new policy. How is it possible to cover a case, without suggesting that Petitioner or Respondent is closer to the correct rule of law? What happens if, during arguments, the Justices really beat up on one side, and give the other side an easy time? Would that be forbidden to discuss? What happens if the Circuit Court messed up, and the case is an obvious 9-0 reversal? Would that not be worth mentioning. Also, failing to discuss the “case’s broader impact” makes for an awfully boring discussion. Wouldn’t it be more effective to not cover such cases, at all, rather than to give them such cursory treatment? But therein lies the solution. The quickest way for SCOTUSblog to become an “impartial, journalistic entity” would be to sever all editorial and financial ties with the law firm. Better than any firewall, this obvious step would eliminate any doubts. This least-restrictive means is apparently something SCOTUSBlog has not been willing to entertain.

Of course, realistically, without any outside financial backing, “SCOTUSblog” cannot afford to sever financial ties with its sponsoring law firm. And because “SCOTUSblog” is such an invaluable resource, I and hopefully everyone else would rather see it continue to exist with those conflicts that currently present themselves than see it disappear altogether.

That being said, the blog’s “Petitions to Watch” feature strikes me as particularly problematic insofar as it treats every case in which that blog’s sponsoring law firm is publicly involved as worthy of inclusion, while every other law firm only gets its cases mentioned on that list if the head of the sponsoring law firm of “SCOTUSblog” deems the case worthy of mention. Deciding what cases to list as “Petitions to Watch” seems like an inquiry that is rife with potential conflicts. The most obvious solution is to omit mention of any case in which the blog’s sponsoring law firm is publicly involved. The fact that hasn’t happened yet shows that even automatic inclusion on the list has value, thereby demonstrating the existence of the very conflict at issue.

Another unavoidable issue arises from the fact that Amy Howe — a wonderful person who I admire tremendously — is the wife of “SCOTUSblog” publisher Tom Goldstein, who heads the blog’s sponsoring law firm. Here at “How Appealing,” I do not purport to cover my wife’s work objectively. Yet at “SCOTUSblog,” whenever Amy Howe has a post that reports on the work of that blog’s sponsoring law firm, the following sort of “Disclosure” appears:

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to [the parties in a particular U.S. Supreme Court case], but I am not affiliated with the firm.]

Now I don’t dispute the disclosure insofar as what it actually says, but it leaves plenty unsaid. Because “SCOTUSblog” is not self-sustaining, its sponsoring law firm makes the financial contributions that allow the blog to continue to exist. Moreover, the revenues of that sponsoring law firm allow Ms. Howe’s husband to earn a living, which contributes to having a home, putting food on the table, someday sending the kids to college, etc. Regardless of whether she can be objective or not, repeatedly claiming to be objective concerning the coverage of her husband’s work simply because she is “not affiliated with” that law firm seems a bit much.

The bottom line is that “SCOTUSblog” has quite a way to go before it will be independent of its sponsoring law firm. It has to achieve financial independence, but it also need to obtain editorial independence, by which I mean it would be written by people who are not close family members of the owner(s) of the sponsoring law firm or part-time employees of that law firm.

Of course, perhaps the most insightful observation appears in the final sentence of the third paragraph of the “Just the facts, ma’am” post that “SCOTUSblog” published yesterday. That sentence states that “coverage suggesting that the [sponsoring law] firm is likely to lose may raise the hackles of the firm’s clients in the case.” If the clients of the law firm that sponsors “SCOTUSblog” — surely a sophisticated group — don’t regard “SCOTUSblog” as a journalistic entity independent from the influence of its sponsoring law firm, notwithstanding all efforts to the contrary, then why should any of the rest of us?