"Rare Supreme Court Outburst Caught on Even Rarer Videos":
Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report
And at "the first casualty" blog, Victoria Kwan has a post titled "Identifying the Clandestine Videos of Supreme Court Oral Arguments Posted Online."
My coverage from earlier today can be accessed here.
"Concealed-weapons ruling challenged":
The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update
that begins, "Attorney General Kamala Harris announced Thursday she has challenged a federal court ruling in a San Diego County case that made it easier for Californians to carry concealed weapons."
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined "State attorney general moves to preserve concealed-gun limits."
Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined "Attorney general to challenge ruling on concealed weapons."
Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined "Attorney General Kamala Harris appeals federal court's concealed-handgun ruling."
The Associated Press reports that "California challenges concealed weapons ruling."
Reuters reports that "California's attorney general takes up court fight over gun laws."
And at her "Trial Insider" blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled "AG to Appeal Concealed Weapons Decision."
Today, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California issued a news release titled "Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Appeals Ninth Circuit Concealed Weapons Permit Ruling." You can view the State of California's proposed petition for rehearing en banc at this link. I use the word "proposed," because California has sought to intervene in the appeal, and its request to intevene must be granted before California will be entitled to seek rehearing en banc.
"Post-Filibuster, Obama Faces New Anger Over Judicial Choices":
Carl Hulse will have this article
in Friday's edition of The New York Times.
"Evidence of Concealed Jailhouse Deal Raises Questions About a Texas Execution":
John Schwartz will have this article
in Friday's edition of The New York Times.
"Religious liberty vs. civil rights: A balancing act; States and courts increasingly must sort out the rights of those exercising their religion against gay men and lesbians who may be adversely affected."
Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report
And in Friday's edition of The New York Times, Adam Nagourney will have a news analysis headlined "Arizona Bill Allowing Refusal of Service to Gays Stirred Alarm in the G.O.P."
"States' Wrongs: Conservatives' illogical, inconsistent effort to repeal the 17th Amendment."
Law professor David Schleicher
has this jurisprudence essay
online today at Slate.
"In Its 'Innocence of Muslims' Ruling, the Ninth Circuit is Guilty of Judicial Activism":
Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman have this post
today at the "Technology & Marketing Law Blog."
How does a member of the general public sneak a video recording device into a U.S. Supreme Court oral argument?
Apparently C-SPAN and others who favor televising the U.S. Supreme Court have been unnecessarily overlooking the self-help remedy, as the YouTube user "SCOTUSpwned" has now posted several oral argument video clips
, with that user's most-viewed video
focusing on yesterday's protester disruption
at the Court.
Update: At WSJ.com's "Law Blog," Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin have a post titled "Unprecedented Video Captures High Court Chamber Protest Footage."
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that "Unauthorized video of Supreme Court protest posted online."
The Associated Press reports that "YouTube video purports to show high court action."
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that "Secret Video of U.S. Supreme Court Session Shows Outburst."
And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that "Supreme Court secretly recorded on camera."
Ninth Circuit rules that high school administrators did not violate the First Amendment by barring students from coming to school on Cinco de Mayo with shirts containing the American flag:
You can access today's unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
at this link
In October 2013, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reported on the oral argument of this appeal in an article headlined "American flag ban: Federal appeals court struggles with Morgan Hill school's Cinco de Mayo incident."
In March 2012, David Hudson Jr. of The First Amendment Center had a report titled "Students appeal ruling in American-flag T-shirt case."
And the Student Press Law Center reporting on the trial court's ruling, affirmed today, in a report titled "Judge sides with Calif. school that told students to take off American flag shirts; Students plan to appeal."
The Rutherford Institute linked to the students' Brief for Appellants in a news release titled "Rutherford Institute Asks Ninth Circuit to Protect Right of Calif. Students to Wear American Flag T-Shirts to School, Declare Flag Ban Unconstitutional."
Update: In early coverage of today's ruling, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that "American flag removal order justified, U.S. court rules in Morgan Hill case."
And at the "School Law" blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled "School's Ban on U.S. Flag Shirts on Cinco de Mayo Upheld."
"A Supreme Court Patent Case Comes Down to a War of Adjectives":
Adam Liptak has this article
in today's edition of The New York Times.
Diane Bartz of Reuters reports that "U.S. top court considers the 'patent troll' problem."
And Susan Decker and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that "Patent Fees Weighed in Supreme Court Case Watched by Apple."
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184 (access the transcript at this link) and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., No. 12-1163 (access the transcript at this link).
"Investor Class Actions Seen at Risk in Halliburton Case":
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report
"U.S. high court sets record for intellectual property caseload":
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report
"Republicans flip-flop on 'judicial activism'":
Columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has this essay
"Google ordered to take anti-Muslim video off its platforms; Federal appeals court rules 'Innocence of Muslims' video may have violated copyright laws of actress and orders Google to take it down":
Maura Dolan has this article
today in The Los Angeles Times.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that "YouTube ordered to pull anti-Muslim film."
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that "Google ordered to take down YouTube anti-Muslim video."
The Washington Times reports that "YouTube ordered to remove anti-Muslim film."
Jonathan Stempel and Dan Levine of Reuters report that "Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube."
The Associated Press reports that "YouTube ordered to take down anti-Muslim film."
CNN.com reports that "Google ordered to remove anti-Muslim film from YouTube."
The "Bits" blog of The New York Times has a post titled "Federal Court Orders YouTube to Take Down Controversial Anti-Islam Video."
The Verge reports that "YouTube must take down explosive 'Innocence of Muslims' video in copyright suit."
At the "Hollywood, Esq." blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has posts titled "'Innocence of Muslims' Actress Scores Huge Victory at Appeals Court; Google now facing liability for refusing to remove the controversial anti-Islamic film from YouTube" and "Secret 'Innocence of Muslims' Order Caused Google to Go Ballistic; The search giant had advance warning of what was coming and made an emergency motion slamming an appeals court for doing something it says was 'stunning.'"
At her "Trial Insider" blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled "Court Says YouTube Must Remove Anti-Muslim Film."
And the "Deeplinks" blog of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a post titled "Bad Facts, Really Bad Law: Court Orders Google to Censor Controversial Video Based on Spurious Copyright Claim."
You can access yesterday's ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the majority opinion.