“Lawyers Can Write Shorter, But It’ll Cost Them”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“U.S. court reinstates Apple win over Samsung in patent case”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a $120 million jury award for Apple Inc against Samsung, in another stunning twist in the fierce patent war between the world’s top smartphone manufacturers.

And Susan Decker of Bloomberg News reports that “Apple Wins Appeal Reinstating $119.6 Million Samsung Verdict.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

The en banc ruling is accompanied by three separate dissenting opinions. Coincidentally, each of the three dissenters were on the original three-judge panel, which reached a result opposite from the one that the remainder of the en banc court reached today. The case was not reargued at the en banc stage, and the majority opinion contains a stinging rebuke of the means that the original three-judge panel used to reverse the district court’s judgment in favor of Apple.

“‘One of the most important Supreme Court Justices ever’: Justices, academics dedicate Scalia Law School.” Nick Anderson has this entry at the “Grade Point” blog of The Washington Post.

On YouTube, George Mason University has posted a video titled “Elena Kagan Remarks at Antonin Scalia Law School Dedication” (via David Bernstein).

“Pa. court won’t halt ballot question on judge retirements; another appeal vowed”: Angela Couloumbis and Mari A. Schaefer have this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer. You can access Wednesday’s ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

And in related commentary, in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Berwood A. Yost has an op-ed titled “Wording matters on Pa.’s judicial ballot question.”

“Irreparable Harm: The Supreme Court just heard a case that proves how broken the death penalty is.” Law professor Brandon L. Garrett has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“Hurricane Matthew Could Have Devastating Consequences for the Election”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at Slate.

“Mid-MDL ‘Gelboim appeals’ are rare, despite N.Y. judge’s complaint”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.

“Use of death penalty re-examined in the states, at Supreme Court”: Carol Zimmermann of Catholic News Service has this report.

“Six justices turn out for dedication of Antonin Scalia Law School”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Antonin Scalia law school dedicated in Virginia.”

“Museum’s slight of Clarence Thomas does African American history a disservice”: Mark Paoletta has this blog post at The Hill.

“Elected Judges Are Less Likely to Support LGBTQ Rights. Also, Judges Should Never Be Elected.” Mark Joseph Stern has this essay online today at Slate.

“Supreme Court Weighs If Friendly Tips Worth Millions Constitute Insider Trading; How the high court defines the crime could have a big effect on white-collar prosecutions”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Is there a pause in the political battle over state Supreme Court?” Jack Lessenberry has this essay online at Michigan Public Radio.

“Florida Supreme Court judges face merit retention votes Nov. 8”: Lloyd Dunkelberger of the News Service of Florida has this report.

“A New Day in the Fifth Circuit?” Barry Barnett has this post today at his “The Contingency” blog.

“Justices Seem Ready to Find Bias in Trial of Black Man on Texas Death Row”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court hears arguments in two cases raising issues of discrimination, unfair treatment.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court seems ready to reopen racial bias claims in Texas and Illinois.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Bias Claims in Murder Trial; Justices hear arguments over whether expert witness’s racial comments undermined African-American man’s sentencing.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices see racism in inmate’s death sentence.”

Kevin Diaz of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court looks at race in Houston death penalty case.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Justices skeptical of testimony black man more dangerous because of his race.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court May Side With Inmate Who Was Sentenced To Death Because He Is Black; Duane Buck wants to be able to show that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Chris McDaniel and Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News report that “Supreme Court Poised To Side With Death Row Inmate In Case With Racist Testimony; Duane Buck was sentenced to death after his own expert said he was more dangerous because he was black; The justices agreed it was ‘indefensible’ — but debated the larger effects of the case on Wednesday.”

Jolie McCullough of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Seems Receptive to Death Case Appeal.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Reviews Racial Discrimination In Texas Death Penalty Case.”

“New Court Dynamics With A New Term of Oral Arguments”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Supreme Court appears hesitant to curtail insider trading prosecutions”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court seeks to clarify insider trading.”

Aruna Viswanatha of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Radically Altering Insider-Trading Rules; Court heard arguments in case asking whether insider trading occurs if original tipster doesn’t benefit.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Ben Protess and Matthew Goldstein have an article headlined “What Is a ‘Personal Benefit’ From Insider Trading? Justices Hear Arguments.” In addition, today’s newspaper contains an editorial titled “The Supreme Court Revisits Insider Trading.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Renae Merle has an article headlined “Is it insider trading to share corporate information with a relative? Supreme Court hears arguments.”

And in commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “There’s Brotherly Love, and Then There’s Insider Trading.”

“Court sides with Valencia College students in ultrasound dispute; The plaintiffs quit the Orlando state college’s sonography program because instructors had students perform what are known as ‘transvaginal ultrasounds’ on each other”: Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida has this report.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Eleventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Analysis: With only eight, caution is the norm.” Lyle Denniston has this blog post today.

“Justice Stephen Breyer in Conversation with Charlie Rose”: The 92nd Street Y in New York City hosted this event earlier this evening.

You can view the video online, on-demand, via this link.

“Big Tobacco Age-Bias Case Heads to Full 11th Circuit”: Rose Bouboushian of Courthouse News Service had this report back in February 2016.

Today, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this ruling in the case.

In coverage of the earlier, now-vacated, ruling of a divided three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel in the case, Richard Craver of The Winston-Salem Journal reported that “Federal appeals court revives age-discrimination complaint against Reynolds.”

“Former Pittsburgh attorney can proceed with lawsuit over fed communications monitoring, court rules”: Brian Bowling of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

“U.S. Supreme Court weighs Texas death row inmate’s race claim”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Black Texas inmate seems likely to win at Supreme Court.”

“High Court Justices Voice Support for Insider-Trading Cases”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court leans toward making insider trading prosecutions easier.”

And Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem wary of limiting insider trading prosecutions.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Salman v. United States, No. 15-628.

“Prosecutor: Plea deal a ‘necessary evil’ in Markel case.” Karl Etters has this front page article in today’s edition of The Tallahassee Democrat.

And Sean Rossman of The Tallahasee Democrat reports that “Markel’s friends eager for next turn in case.”

“Lawsuit alleges forced vaginal probes for Valencia students”: Paul Brinkmann of The Orlando Sentinel had this article back in May 2015.

And in April 2016, Brinkmann had a follow-up article headlined “Valencia ultrasound case becomes lightning rod on campus free speech.”

Yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — in an opinion written by Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. — issued this decision reversing a federal district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.

“Supreme Court Case to Test Prosecution of Insider Trading”: R. Foster Winans has this post online at The New York Times.

“Texas Death Row Appeal Hinges on Racial Testimony”: Jolie McCullough of The Texas Tribune has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Texas inmate argues death sentence racially tainted.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court To Hear Death Penalty Case Based On Racially Tainted Testimony.”

And Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones has an article headlined “A Black Woman Is Arguing a Big Supreme Court Case Today: That Shouldn’t Be Unusual; But It Is; Christina Swarns will take on a racially charged death penalty case.”

“In tirade at Fargo meeting, N.D. Supreme Court candidate challenges opponent: ‘Let’s get it on.'” Mike Nowatzki of The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota has this report.

“Supreme Court Name-Checks Kim Kardashian While Trying To Define A Legal Term; The reality star’s robbery came up during oral arguments in a bank fraud case”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has an article headlined “Yes, A Supreme Court Justice Discussed Kim Kardashian’s Robbery In Court.”

“Supreme Court opens with a complicated case of double jeopardy”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hears First Round Of Arguments In New Term.”

“Supreme Court Advocates Verrilli & Clement Join Big Law Firms”: Bloomberg Law has this podcast featuring Greg Stohr.

“Supreme Court starts new term with more questions than answers”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“Should Racism in the Jury Room Lead to a New Trial? The Supreme Court will hear the case of a Latino man convicted after racist sentiments were allegedly expressed during deliberations, but longstanding rules about juries would prevent him from getting a new day in court.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.