“Supreme Court, in Recusal Case, May Find Itself Looking Inward”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Appeals court reverses Key West tattoo shop ruling”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued last Tuesday.

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

“In U.S., Justice Kennedy Was ‘Person of Year'”: Kenneth Jost had this post yesterday at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Obama’s gun control options each have legal pitfalls”: Reuters has this report.

“Chief Justice Roberts Takes a Fourth Bite at the Apple”: Michael Dorf has this post today at “Dorf on Law.”

And yesterday at the “Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog,” Patricia W. Moore had a post titled “Chief Justice’s Year-End Report Praises Rules Amendments Sought by Corporate Defendants.”

“Ohio Supreme Court to weigh whether immunity law covers non-medical help”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Ohio Supreme Court is weighing whether the state’s good Samaritan law should apply to individuals trying to provide non-medical help in emergencies.”

“Our lovely Supreme Court Building”: The Santa Fe New Mexican has this report.

“Footage of Supreme Court hearings proves an unlikely hit with the public; In the six months since the court opened its archive the footage has been accessed an average of 10,000 times a month”: The Independent (UK) has an article that begins, “It was expected to be little more than an iPlayer for law students: more than 900 hours of footage from inside the Supreme Court, offering a window on the often dry and sometimes fiendishly complex legal deliberations.”

“As U.S. abortion case looms, both sides seek personal touch”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has an article that begins, “As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear its first abortion case in nearly a decade, both sides have been quietly gathering vivid personal accounts from women to supplement the dry legal arguments, believing the effort could appeal particularly to swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy.”

“Senate a major roadblock for next president’s Supreme Court picks”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“States plan renewed debate on LGBT rights, religious freedom”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Lawmakers in numerous states are preparing for a new round of battles over gay rights and religious freedoms in 2016 following last summer’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage.”

“Not all victims represented in Supreme Court Iran terrorism case”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“N.J. mayor sworn in by U.S. Supreme Court Justice”: NJ.com posted online on Friday afternoon an article that begins, “Hamilton Mayor Kelly Yaede was sworn into her first full term on Friday by none other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., who returned to his former hometown to administer the oath of office.”

“Ohio Supreme Court declines duck case”: The Coshocton Tribune has an article that begins, “The Ohio Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a veteran seeking to keep therapy ducks at his home in violation of village law.”

“Government can, should, support religion, Justice Antonin Scalia tells Metairie crowd”: Robert McClendon of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

The New Orleans Advocate reports that “Scalia criticizes other justices over meaning of religious freedom.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech.”

“Authors challenge Google’s book copying project”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” You can view the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“Authors Guild Asks Supreme Court to Hear Google Books Copyright Case”: Jeff John Roberts had this post yesterday at Fortune.com.

Yesterday at “The Switch” blog of The Washington Post, Hayley Tsukayama had an entry titled “The Authors Guild files to take Google to the Supreme Court.”

And Publishers Weekly reports that “Authors Guild Petitions Supreme Court to Hear Google Case.”

“Women’s rights at stake: How the Supreme Court and abortion laws will shape the 2016 election; It doesn’t seem like it now, but come primary season, abortion might be the No. 1 issue for many GOP voters.” Amanda Marcotte has this essay today at Salon.com.

“Maine’s supreme court justices to sit for trials to ease backlog of felony cases”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court coverage reinforces public’s distrust of media”: Mark Grabowski, a professor of journalism and media law, has this blog post online at The Hill.

“In 2016, terror suspects and 7-Eleven thieves may bring surveillance to Supreme Court; This year, US v. Graham is just one of several privacy cases we have our eye on”: Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report today.

“Supreme Court Cases Probe Conflict Between Constitution And Native American Rights”: Daniel Fisher has this post today at Forbes.com.

“2015: The Year in Religious Liberty Controversies; And one to look forward to in 2016.” Stephanie Slade had this post yesterday at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog.

“Battle over abortion rights in California shifts to crisis pregnancy centers; New law requires notice of public reproductive health services in any licensed clinic for pregnant women; Effort targets faith-based crisis pregnancy centers that counsel women against abortion; Clinics have mounted legal challenge over compelled speech, religious freedom”: This article appeared in The Sacramento Bee early last month.

The Union of Grass Valley, California reports that “Grass Valley pregnancy center loses first court battle over state law.”

And the Christian News Network reports that “Judges Refuse to Stop Law Ordering Pregnancy Centers to Provide Info on Gov’t Abortion Programs.”

Yesterday, one pregnancy center that objects to the new law filed this emergency motion for injunction pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In earlier commentary about the new California statute, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky had an op-ed titled “In California, free speech meets abortion” in The Los Angeles Times.

At Justia.com’s Verdict, law professor Vikram David Amar had an essay titled “Why the Challenges to California’s Reproductive Fact Act Are Likely Unpersuasive.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “A Woman’s Right to Know: Can California make crisis pregnancy centers say what they really are?”