“Social Conservatives’ Legal Juggernaut”: Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg Law has this report.

In today’s mail: I received a copy of law professor Josh Blackman‘s new book, “Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.” I’m reliably advised that this blog is mentioned at least twice in the book.

“What if nature, like corporations, had the rights and protections of a person?” Chip Colwell has this essay online at The Conversation.

“Supreme Court divided in juror race-bias dispute”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606.

Access this afternoon’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in three new cases.

“Justices raise doubts about $399M judgment against Samsung”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777.

“Court Gives President More Power Over Consumer Agency Chief”: Stacy Cowley of The New York Times has this report.

Brent Kendall and Yuka Hayashi of The Wall Street Journal report that “Appeals Panel Deals Setback to Consumer-Watchdog Agency; Federal three-judge panel rules structure of CFPB is unconstitutional, but rejects idea of shutting down agency.”

Dave Boyer of The Washington Times reports that “Court deals setback to Obama on consumer board.”

Lisa Lambert and Nate Raymond of Reuters report that “U.S. court rules CFPB structure unconstitutional; bureau can still operate.”

Bloomberg News reports that “CFPB Director’s Power Trimmed by U.S. Appeals Court Ruling.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: Consumer watchdog structure unconstitutional.”

Lorraine Woellert of Politico.com reports that “Court deals blow to ‘unconstitutionally structured’ Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.”

And Daniel Marans of The Huffington Post reports that “Elizabeth Warren’s Wall Street Watchdog Ruled Unconstitutional In Current Form; The appeals court decision won’t necessarily doom the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Taxis reversed: Appeals court rules in favor of Uber.” Andy Grimm of The Chicago Sun-Times has this report.

Hal Dardick of The Chicago Tribune has an article headlined “Appellate judge: Taxis and Ubers are dogs and cats when it comes to regulation.”

And Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Milwaukee taxi firms lose in the 7th Circuit.”

Last Friday, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner — on behalf of the same three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — issued two unanimous opinions in these cases, one involving Chicago and the other involving Milwaukee.

“It is Improper to Consider Extra-Record Claim Construction Evidence On Appeal”: Dennis Crouch has this post at “Patently-O.”

My earlier coverage of last Friday’s en banc Federal Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“The Supreme Court Is Being Hypocritical”: Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

In addition, the Court issued a per curiam decision in Bosse v. Oklahoma, No. 15-9173.

“Lyn Stuart takes leadership of Ala. state judiciary”: Brian Lyman has this front page article in today’s edition of The Montgomery Advertiser, along with a front page article headlined “Roy Moore won’t talk future plans amid 2018 rumors” and another article headlined “Roy Moore wants justices to step away from his appeal.”

“U.S. top court to hear Apple-Samsung feud over iPhone designs”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Apple, Samsung to Argue Patent Case Before Supreme Court; High court to decide if a company can be required to pay all profits on products that infringe a patented design.”

Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News report that “Apple and Samsung Take Design Dispute to Supreme Court.”

And Jon Swartz of USA Today reports that “Samsung, Apple headed for Supreme Court showdown.”

“Justices weigh dispute over racial bias in jury room”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.