“With Court Ruling, Sodomy Law Doesn’t Apply When Victim Is Unconscious”: Clifton Adcock of Oklahoma Watch has this report.

And Molly Redden of The Guardian (UK) has an article headlined “Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking; The ruling sparked outrage among critics who argue the judicial system engaged in victim-blaming and upholding outdated notions about rape and sexual assault.”

You can access last month’s ruling of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals — that state’s highest court in criminal cases — at this link.

“Professors Rail Against Renaming Law School After Antonin Scalia, Taking Koch Money; The faculty senate at George Mason University just voted 21-13 to reopen the naming process of the law school”: Dan Vergano of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Highest military court hears Marine’s religious freedom case”: Dianna Cahn of Stars and Stripes has this report.

Bill Mears of FoxNews.com has an article headlined “Court-martialed for expressing faith? Court hears ex-Marine’s religious freedom case.”

Zoe Tillman of The National Law Journal reports that “Paul Clement, On Unfamiliar Ground, Makes Religious Freedom Case in Military Court; Dispute over U.S. Marine’s posting of Bible-inspired text in her work space tests religious freedom law in the military.”

And earlier, Michael Doyle of McClatchyDC previewed the case in a report headlined “Bible-citing Marine raises religious freedom questions in appeal.”

“Digital publisher not liable for freelancers’ infringement — 10th Circuit”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

My earlier post — which Frankel’s report kindly mentions — about Monday’s Tenth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Dangerous New Uses for Government Eavesdropping”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Justices Rule First Amendment Protects Officer Demoted in Misunderstanding”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey reports that “Paterson faces possible $2M expense after Supreme Court ruling in cop’s free speech case.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Rules Political Speech Is Protected Even If You Didn’t Actually Speak; What matters is the motive of those who sought to punish you.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Sides With Police Officer In Yard Sign Case.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court Protects Unspoken Free Speech.”

“Sunstein’s False Claim that Scalia Was a Living Constitutionalist”: Law professor John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Library of Law and Liberty” blog.

Redesigned Seventh Circuit web site coming soon: An announcement displayed on the home page of the web site of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit states, “The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is in the process of reconstructing its website. The new site will debut at the end of this week. Any bookmarks to items on our current website will most likely need to be recreated.”

Now one could quibble with the use of the term “reconstructing,” whose primary meaning suggests that the court’s current web site has been damaged or destroyed. My main hope, however, is that the opinion selection options for “last week” and “last month” are replaced with the more accurate descriptions of “past week” and “past month.”

“What Happens When There Aren’t Enough Judges to Go Around: 84 federal vacancies, and a glacial confirmation rate, put extra stress on some districts.” Eli Hager of The Marshall Project has this news analysis.

Proposal to increase Pennsylvania’s judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 has been defeated in non-binding voter referendum: According to statistics available from the web site of Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, with 98.78 percent of all voter districts reporting statewide, voters yesterday rejected the amendment to Pennsylvania’s Constitution that would have increased the mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 by a vote of 1,211,231 (50.98%) against to 1,164,818 for (49.02%).

A total of 2,376,049 voters voted on the amendment. By contrast, a total of 2,401,893 voters voted on the other constitutional amendment on yesterday’s Pennsylvania statewide ballot, to abolish Philadelphia’s Traffic Court.

However, yesterday’s vote to reject an increase in Pennsylvania’s judicial retirement age doesn’t count for reasons explained in this post of mine from earlier this month. At my polling place, I did not see any signs informing voters that the ballot question had been withdrawn from the primary ballot, and as noted above the judicial retirement age amendment received only a total of 25,844 fewer votes than the Philadelphia Traffic Court amendment that actually counted. Even if all of those withheld votes had gone to approve the retirement age increase, the proposal still would have lost under the current vote totals.

For reasons stated in my “Upon Further Review” column published this month in The Legal Intelligencer titled “Delay of Vote on Judicial Retirement Age Could Make One Cynical.” I applaud Pennsylvania voters for “rejecting” the proposed five-year extension of Pennsylvania’s judicial retirement age. Now Pennsylvania voters merely need to do the same thing once more — with emphasis — this November in order for it to count. Unfortunately, as noted in my column this month, the wording of the judicial retirement age ballot provision that will appear in November will be far less informative concerning its effect than the one that appeared on the ballot yesterday.