“The Bingo Act’s restrictions on the use of bingo proceeds for political advocacy are permissible conditions on a government subsidy and do not operate to penalize speech.” So ruled a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit yesterday in a First Amendment challenge to limitations imposed under the Texas Bingo Enabling Act on how charities may use bingo proceeds.

“The Hidden Stakes of the Election”: Today at the blog of The New York Review of Books, law professor Cass R. Sunstein has a post that begins, “It is not exactly news that there are big differences between judges chosen by Republican presidents and judges chosen by Democratic presidents. Of course the most visible differences involve constitutional law.”

“Eyes on Justice Kennedy in Affirmative-Action Case”: Jess Bravin will have this article Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Feds seek full court review of cigarette warnings”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “FDA Seeks Reconsideration of U.S. Cigarette Label Ruling.”

You can view the FDA’s petition for rehearing en banc at this link.

Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire is reporting: In coverage of today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List, he has articles headlined “Justices steer clear of Chevron’s $18B Ecuadorean pollution judgment” and “Justices won’t hear Ala. Superfund dispute.”

“Race and College Admissions, Facing a New Test by Justices”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of USA Today, Richard Wolf will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to weigh in again on affirmative action.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court case on use of race in admissions could be landmark; The University of Texas at Austin admits some students based on a process that includes race as one factor — even though the school is already racially diverse; The Supreme Court will consider whether that process is justified.” And Stacy Teicher Khadaroo has an article headlined “Supreme Court: If affirmative action is banned, what happens at colleges? Nine states have tried to achieve campus diversity through other means, with mixed results; On Wednesday, the Supreme Court takes up an affirmative action case from the University of Texas at Austin.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Case Brought by White Student Who Claims Race Cost Her Admission to UT.”

The San Antonio Express-News has an update headlined “Supreme Court to hear case against UT’s race-conscious admissions.”

Terry Baynes of Reuters has a report headlined “Preview: Is Supreme Court set to end use of race in admissions?”

This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Supreme Court To Take Up Affirmative Action Case“; “At U. Of Texas, A Melting Pot Not Fully Blended“; and “How Does Affirmative Action Impact Colleges?”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: Is affirmative action about to end?”

At WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Jess Bravin and Sara Murray have a post titled “Romney Stays Away From Affirmative Action Case.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Lee C. Bollinger and Claude M. Steele have an op-ed entitled “A high-stakes battle for higher education: The Supreme Court should recognize that we all benefit from affirmative action in college admissions.”

At the “Defining Ideas” site of the Hoover Institution, law professor Richard A. Epstein has an essay entitled “The Affirmative Action Quagmire: Rather than place restrictions on race-based preferences, the Supreme Court should let colleges run themselves.”

Online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Rage or Justice: The complicated emotions behind the Supreme Court’s upcoming argument on affirmative action.”

And online at The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “How Affirmative Action Shaped the Current Supreme Court: Tomorrow’s case may put an end to the policy at U.S. universities; But its personal impact on the careers of several of the justices could hardly be more pronounced.”

“Federal Circuit: Congress can’t renege on pay promises to judges.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

Programming note: Additional posts will not appear here until this evening.

Once the U.S. Supreme Court posts its Order List online shortly after 9:30 a.m. eastern time today, you can access it via this link. And you can access timely coverage of the Order List from “SCOTUSblog.”

“Justices Face a Test on Race; A University of Texas Admissions Policy Aims to Help High-Scoring Minorities”: Jess Bravin will have this article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Jeffrey Toobin: Don’t Expect ‘New’ Or ‘Moderate’ John Roberts After Health Care Ruling.” TPM DC has this report.

“High court looks at race in college admissions”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Plaintiffs assail Va. public-records law on 2 fronts”: Tony Mauro has this report online at the First Amendment Center.

“Supreme Court to take up UT admission case”: This article will appear Monday in The Houston Chronicle.

“Supreme Court receives outpouring of conflicting views on affirmative action”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court candidates with similar passions stress their differences; Longtime attorney Sheryl Gordon McCloud and former Justice Richard Sanders are battling for an open seat on the state Supreme Court; McCloud says she has the right judicial temperament for the job, while Sanders says he has more experience”: Friday’s edition of The Seattle Times contained this article.

“Georgia high court may weigh in on ‘Girls Gone Wild’ case”: This article appeared Thursday in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

And a related article from Atlanta’s WSB-TV Action News 2 is headlined “Woman takes case against Girls Gone Wild to Supreme Court.”

“Major victory — and pay raises — for U.S. judges”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

My earlier coverage of Friday’s en banc Federal Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“California has chance to change Three Strikes, repeal death penalty”: Tracey Kaplan and Howard Mintz have this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

“Super sweet letter from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Supreme Court Judge extraordinaire!” Chef Kyle Bailey of the restaurant Birch & Barley has this tweet and accompanying photograph.

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Affirmative action again on trial.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

And in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. have an op-ed entitled “Do race preferences help students? There’s evidence that many students don’t thrive in colleges for which they’re far less prepared than their fellow students.”

“High court to hear arguments on UT’s consideration of race in admissions”: This article appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.

The Associated Press has a report headlined “‘Critical mass’ key to affirmative action case.”

Stateline reports that “Affirmative Action Gets a Hearing.”

Paul Barrett of BloombergBusinessweek has an article headlined “The Corporate Case for Affirmative Action.”

Yesterday’s edition of The Harvard Crimson contained an article headlined “Attorney Speaks On Harvard Amicus Brief.”

In tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times, Lincoln Caplan will have an Editorial Observer essay entitled “Colleges Value Diversity, but Will the Court?” And in yesterday’s edition of that newspaper, Thomas J. Espenshade had an op-ed entitled “Moving Beyond Affirmative Action.”

And in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Gerald Walpin had an op-ed entitled “Race and the Law at the Supreme Court: With Fisher v. University of Texas, the court has a chance to do the right thing–end the use of racial preferences.” You can freely access the full text of the op-ed via Google News.

“Fla. Supreme Court justices fight back to retain seats; Florida’s Supreme Court justices have learned the art of brass knuckle politics as a merit retention fight heats up”: The Miami Herald has this report.

“Judges Rule for Judges on Pay”: Brent Kendall has a post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” that begins, “Refereeing a remarkable dispute between the judiciary and Congress, a divided federal appeals court ruled late Friday afternoon that lawmakers violated the Constitution by blocking cost-of-living salary increases for federal judges.”

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

“Canada’s newest Supreme Court judge pitches his street smarts”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Kirk Makin has an article that begins, “The country’s newest Supreme Court of Canada judge, Mr. Justice Richard Wagner, turned inexperience into a virtue on Thursday, telling a parliamentary committee that he will bring to the top court a practising lawyer’s sense of street savvy.”

“US court mulls Arabic flashcards, Pa. airport stop”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A college student handcuffed at Philadelphia International Airport for several hours over Arabic language flashcards asked a U.S. appeals court Friday to let him pursue his lawsuit against five federal agents.”

“Supreme Court Justice’s Son Bids For California Statehouse Seat”: BuzzFeed Politics has a report that begins, “The son of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, a leader of the court’s liberal wing, is in a tough race for California State Assembly in San Francisco.”

You can view Michael Breyer’s campaign web site at this link.

“Obama administration asks Supreme Court to rule on generic-drug delays”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a report headlined “FTC cert petition puts SCOTUS in pay-for-delay pickle.”

“Florida Supreme Court judges fight for their jobs”: Reuters has a report that begins, “Facing unprecedented political opposition, three Florida Supreme Court justices are fighting back against Republicans and conservative activists seeking to change the balance in the state’s highest court by getting voters to fire them.”

“Analysis: Republicans lead Obama in war for judicial dominance.” Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

“Court grants 7 new cases”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Can Va. keep out-of-staters from using FOI?”

“North Bergen shock jock released from prison”: NorthJersey.com has a news update that begins, “Harold ‘Hal’ Turner, the incendiary Internet radio shock jock and former national security confidential source for the FBI, walked out of a halfway house in Newark this morning after serving nearly three years in prison for threatening federal judges.”

“Symposium Revisits Landmark Student-Speech Cases”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report (pass-through link).

“Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“The New Price of American Politics”: This lengthy profile of attorney James Bopp Jr. appears in the October 2012 issue of The Atlantic magazine.

And online at Slate, Jon Campbell has a jurisprudence essay entitled “James Bopp Jr. Gets Creative: How does the conservative maestro of campaign finance fund his legal work?”

“Supreme Court Questions Federal Government’s Narrow Reading of the Takings Clause”: Damon W. Root has this blog post online at Reason.