“Trump’s claim aside, travel ban ruling based in law, scholars say”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

And earlier this week, Egelko had an article headlined “SF-based court back on conservatives’ radar as Trump ruling nears.”

“Trump Vows Quick Action to Stop Terrorism After Setback in Court”: Peter Baker of The New York Times has this report.

Ninth Circuit judge calls for full-court review in State of Washington v. Trump, triggering that court’s sua sponte en banc procedures: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this order today requiring the parties to simultaneously file briefs by February 16, 2017 addressing whether the case should be reheard by an 11-judge panel of that court.

To obtain rehearing en banc, a majority of the non-recused judges in regular active service must vote in favor of rehearing. If rehearing is ordered, the case will be reheard by a panel of 11 judges that is not guaranteed to have any of the original three judges among its members.

Although a grant of rehearing en banc in this case is unlikely, it is worth noting that two of the three judges on the original three-judge panel — Judges Canby and Clifton — are senior status judges, so they do not have the ability to vote on whether the case should be reheard en banc. If rehearing en banc is granted, however, then Judges Canby and Clifton can elect to be included among the judges who are capable of being randomly assigned to the 11-judge en banc panel.

The Ninth Circuit’s Public Information Office today issued a related news release titled “Ninth Circuit En Banc Procedure Summary.”

“Judge Gorsuch, We Won’t Be Fooled Again.” U.S. Senator and minority leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) will have this essay in the SundayReview section of this Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Trailblazer Thapar Might Be in Trump’s SCOTUS Bullpen”: Patrick L. Gregory of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

On a personal note, I got to spend some time visiting with Judge Thapar at the 2016 Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference in Louisville, and he is a very impressive person.

“Washington Lawyer’s Win Over Trump Immigration Ban Brings Sudden Fame; Noah Purcell brought experience at Homeland Security, Supreme Court clerkship to state solicitor general post”: Sara Randazzo of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“A constitutional lesson for a new president”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“See You in Court … Maybe: The Department of Justice has four options to salvage Trump’s immigration ban; Only one makes sense.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Trump Tried to Intimidate the Judges Over His Ban, and He Failed; Presidents have thought before that they could roll those wimpy-looking nerds with their gavels and robes; It usually doesn’t work out all that well”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“The Ninth Circuit Rejects Trumpism”: Amy Davidson has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Why Does Donald Trump Lash Out at Everybody, Even Judges?” John Cassidy has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Trump’s Legal Options in Travel Ban Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Videos of note that The Federalist Society has recently posted on YouTube: A video titled “The Legacy of Justice Scalia” featuring, among others, Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton and Rachel Kovner.

“Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices ” featuring, among others, Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes and Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. (Justice Bolick also recently spoke at the University of Chicago Law School; you can access the audio via this link.)

And “Forty Years Later: The Brennan Article and State Constitutions” featuring, among others, Ninth Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee and law professor Derek Muller.

One clear pattern emerges — if you are a federal appellate judge wishing to moderate or serve as a panelist on a Federalist Society panel, it helps to have the middle initial “S.”

“Justice Kennedy’s opinion in 2015 case looms in U.S. travel ban fight”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has a report that begins, “Justice Anthony Kennedy’s legal reasoning in a little-noticed 2015 U.S. Supreme Court immigration ruling could play a pivotal role in deciding the fate of President Donald Trump’s travel ban if the high court eventually decides the matter.”

“If Trump were smart, he’d skip a Supreme Court appeal right now”: Michael Doyle and Franco Ordonez of McClatchyDC have this report.

Access the contents of the February 2017 issue of the Harvard Law Review: Via this link, containing (among other things) an article titled “The Law of Interpretation,” by law professors William Baude and Stephen E. Sachs.

“Will the Supreme Court Back Trump? When his travel ban hits the highest court, don’t count on it splitting on party lines.” Law professor Richard Primus has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

Online at The New York Daily News, law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has an essay titled “President Trump can rant, tweet, and make threats, but the courts are immune to his antics.”

And online at The Guardian (UK), Joshua Matz has an essay titled “An extraordinary act of judicial courage: inside the latest travel ban court opinion; The court’s decision exemplified the rule of law in a democratic society; It displays the judicial courage our era requires.”

“Different Republican Nominee, Same Democratic Dance”: Leonard A. Leo has this essay today at RealClearPolitics.com.

“Higher Justice: Judge Neil Gorsuch’s constitutionalism contrasts starkly with the progressive administrative state — and the president who is appointing him.” Adam J. White has this cover story in the February 20, 2017 issue of The Weekly Standard.

“Trump’s trash talk on judges makes trouble for Gorsuch”: The Los Angeles Times has published this editorial.