“Court Documents Appear To Confirm The FBI Is Using Best Buy Techs To Perform Warrantless Searches For It”: Tim Cushing of Techdirt has this report.

“Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Coming Within 2 Weeks Of Inauguration; Mike Pence was on the Hill on Wednesday looking for Democratic senators to get behind Trump’s eventual choice”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

And Alexander Bolton of The Hill reports that “Conservatives press Trump on Supreme Court pick.”

“U.S. states mull contraception coverage as Obamacare repeal looms”: Jilian Mincer of Reuters has this report.

“Fate of Hospital Pensions Rests With Supreme Court”: Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“Potential nominee profile: Steven Colloton.” Tejinder Singh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“How Barack Obama Transformed The Nation’s Courts: He filled two SCOTUS seats and made the judiciary more diverse than ever; But the GOP stopped him from doing more.” Jennifer Bendery of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Just say no to Comcast”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an editorial that begins, “Mayor Kenney shouldn’t cave to media giant Comcast’s dire yet unspecified warnings of litigation if he doesn’t weaken a pay equity bill.”

My earlier coverage of this matter can be accessed here.

“Last Call for SCOTUS Grants, Amid Historically Slow Term”: Kimberly S. Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“3rd Circuit allows ‘subgroup’ of older workers in ADEA lawsuit”: Daniel Wiessner of Reuters has a report (subscription required for full access) that begins, “A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday became the first to hold that federal age bias law offers protections to ‘subgroups’ of older workers, saying three courts that ruled otherwise improperly restricted the scope of the law.”

And at his “CA3blog,” Matthew Stiegler has a post titled “Third Circuit issues major ADEA ruling creating circuit split.”

You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

“Trump Promises Fast Action on Supreme Court Nomination”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Anita Kumar and Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau report that “Trump will nominate a Supreme Court justice soon, but will it be soon enough?”

Emily Stephenson and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Trump says he’ll make high court pick within 2 weeks after taking office.”

Ariane de Vogue, Phil Mattingly, and Tom LoBianco of CNN.com report that “Trump, Pence moving quickly on Supreme Court pick.”

And Eliana Johnson of Politico.com reports that “Trump pledges to name Supreme Court nominee within two weeks of inauguration.”

“Honour killings to voting rights: Hot-button issues coming up at Supreme Court.” Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this report.

“Goodyear Asks Supreme Court to Nix $2.7M Sanction”: Samson Habte of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“Big Law Associate Takes on Supreme Court Veteran Over NCAA Race-Bias Claims”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has an article that begins, “A Morrison & Foerster associate who recently completed a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship will argue Wednesday against former solicitor general Seth Waxman in a major race discrimination case that involves the National Collegiate Athletic Association.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted online on YouTube at this link the video of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel in Hardie v. NCAA, No. 15-55576 (9th Cir.).

“Supreme Court Weighs If Some Credit Card ‘Swipe’ Fees Violate The 1st Amendment; A group of New York merchants is challenging a state law it says misleads consumers”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Justices Face ‘Blizzard of Words’ in Special Education Case”: Adam Liptak of The new York Times has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court likely to boost public schools’ responsibilities to children with disabilities.”

Emma Brown and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court wrestles with defining rights for students with disabilities, including autism.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Appears Ready to Bolster Support for Disabled Students; Justices hear arguments in case of school district refusing to pay for private school for autistic student.”

Mark K. Matthews of The Denver Post reports that “U.S. Supreme Court hears case on special-needs students that started in Colorado.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court may put more bite into law for disabled students.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Considers How Schools Support Students With Disabilities.”

And in commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court Gets Between Schools and Parents.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1, No. 15-827.

“Potential nominee profile: William Pryor.” Kevin Russell and Charles Davis have this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“King tells the Supreme Court how to do its job”: The Des Moines Register has this editorial.

“Texas Supreme Court case revives past improper admissions practices at UT”: Lindsay Ellis of The Houston Chronicle has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court to decide on education rights for millions of children with disabilities”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

John Aguilar and Mark K. Matthews of The Denver Post report that “Colorado at center of Supreme Court case that examines standards for special-needs students.”

And Emma Brown of The Washington Post has an article headlined “Supreme Court to decide: What level of education do public schools legally owe to students with disabilities?”

“Feinstein confronts Sessions, as Supreme Court battle awaits”: Carolyn Lochhead has this front page article in today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Colorado official proposes refunds for exonerated defendants after harsh questions by Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court hears appeal on state’s rule requiring lawsuits to get money back”: David Migoya has this front page article in today’s edition of The Denver Post.

“Lawsuits over Trump business threaten to tie up presidency”: The Associated Press has this report.

“True Lies: There was one moment in Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing that revealed why so many are so terrified of him.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“North Dakota rejects changes to reflect gay marriage ruling”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “North Dakota’s Republican-led Senate rejected a measure Tuesday that would have changed state law to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry.”

“Supreme Court Considers Role of Free Speech in Explaining Credit Card Fees”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “A tale of bar tabs and deli sandwiches stymies a few Supreme Court justices.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Difference Between a ‘Cash Discount’ and a ‘Surcharge’; Small merchants have challenged a New York law that restricts credit-card surcharges.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with credit card surcharge laws.”

In commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Cash Discounts, Credit Surcharges and Free Speech.”

And online at The Wall Street Journal, law professor Todd J. Zywicki and Geoffrey A. Manne have an essay titled “The Constitution Says Nothing About Behavioral Economics: A hair salon tells the Supreme Court that trendy research backs up its right to charge credit-card fees.”

Miguel Estrada warns City of Philadelphia that his hourly rate is very expensive: When you live in the Philadelphia region, it’s not every day that the front page of your morning newspaper contains an article featuring Miguel Estrada and the costliness of his legal services. But today was such a day.

In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tricia L. Nadolny has a front page article headlined “Comcast warns of costly legal battle if Kenney doesn’t veto wage discrimination bill.” The article begins:

Comcast has urged Mayor Kenney to veto a bill that would bar employers from asking job applicants for their salary histories or risk a costly legal challenge.

The legislation, meant to combat wage discrimination, violates the First Amendment, an attorney hired by Comcast argues in a legal memo sent to the city and obtained by the Inquirer.

“While my client and others in the business community who are considering a legal challenge do not want to appear confrontational in any way, it is important to note that a successful challenge … could make the City liable for a substantial award of attorney’s fees,” attorney Miguel Estrada wrote on behalf of Comcast.

As the article later explains:

Among many challenges raised in the 25-page memo, Estrada said the law would violate employers’ First Amendment rights to ask about wage history. He said that to justify such a restriction, the city must prove it would advance its goal of reducing wage discrimination without restricting more speech than necessary.

Lest you wonder whether Miguel Estrada himself wrote the entire 25-page memo, the article contains a quotation from the memo that bears the hallmarks of that trademarked Estrada wit:

[Estrada] argues there is no evidence that asking for salary history perpetuates wage discrimination. Disparities could be due to legitimate factors, including “taking a 10-year absence from the workforce to ‘see the world,’ working fewer hours, or — to state the obvious — being a worse employee,” he said

On a day that one curious First Amendment challenge was argued at the U.S. Supreme Court, it is interesting to wonder how this proposed law implicates a potential employer’s First Amendment rights, when the speech that’s put off-limits is a job applicant’s answer supplying the applicant’s salary history.

As the article reports, David L. Cohen, a former high-powered Philadelphia attorney who now serves as Comcast’s senior executive vice president, engaged Estrada to persuade Philadelphia not to approve this legislation at the risk of costly legal action. Apparently none of Philadelphia’s many fine First Amendment litigators were persuasive and expensive enough to merit the engagement.

In any event, Comcast’s strategy may be working, as this afternoon Tricia L. Nadolny of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an updated article headlined “Confronted by Comcast’s lawsuit threat, Kenney hesitates on wage discrimination bill.”

“Cert Analytics”: Adam Feldman has this post today at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Supreme Court struggles with NY credit-card surcharge law”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court grapples with credit card surcharge law dispute.”

Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, No. 15-1391.

“Jeff Sessions Says Decision Allowing Abortion Deserves Respect And Will Be Followed; Despite calling the federal legalization of abortion ‘one of the worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decision of all time,’ Sessions said he would ‘respect’ it”: Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News has this report.

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Jeff Sessions Denies Racism Allegations; The US attorney general nominee said the ‘caricature’ of him during his failed judicial nomination in 1986 was false.”

“Argument analysis: Court unlikely to resolve complex issues about scope of sovereign and tribal immunity.” Todd Henderson has this guest post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The Long Arm of U.S. Law Stretches to Asia”: Online today at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay that begins, “U.S. law can reach American sex offenders abroad so long as they haven’t resettled in another country, according to a federal appeals court.”

“Judge Danny J. Boggs (CA6) will Take Senior Status on 2/28/17”: Josh Blackman has this blog post today.

“High court sends New Mexico police shooting lawsuit back to lower court”: Andrew Oxford of The Santa Fe New Mexican has an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday kicked back to a lower court a family’s lawsuit against New Mexico State Police officers involved in a Glorieta man’s shooting death five years ago during an incident in which the officers claim they acted in self-defense.”

“U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in local tribal sovereignty case”: In today’s edition of The Day of New London, Connecticut, Brian Hallenbeck has a front page article that begins, “A Waterford attorney whose tribal sovereignty case the U.S. Supreme Court heard Monday said he was encouraged by the questions the justices posed during oral arguments.”

Agence France-Presse reports that “Top US court hears case that could redefine tribal sovereignty.”

And Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices Weigh Tribal Immunity for Limo Crash.”

“Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” Law professor William Baude has posted this article on SSRN.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy” today, he has a related post titled “Is it time to hold police officers accountable for constitutional violations?”