“Antonin Scalia’s Rightful Revolution”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“The strong interest in uniform application of the law means that we should usually follow unpublished decisions.” Fifth Circuit Judge Gregg Costa today issued a dissenting opinion that begins:

The strong interest in uniform application of the law means that we should usually follow unpublished decisions. But the difference between published and unpublished decisions must mean something. Otherwise, we should just “publish” everything and give all opinions the weight of binding authority.

You can access the majority opinion at this link.

“U.S. appeals decision striking down ban on offensive trademarks”: Reuters has a report (subscription required for full access) that begins, “Trademark officials may legitimately refuse to support the use of racial slurs without violating the First Amendment, the U.S. government said in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.”

You can access the petition for a writ of certiorari that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Ashley Madison plaintiffs cannot sue anonymously over hack, judge says”: Reuters has this report.

“Abbott blasts Roberts, calls U.S. Supreme Court a ‘political body'”: Kevin Diaz of The Houston Chronicle has an article that begins, “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, wading into the battle over President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, said Thursday that high court ‘deserves to be swept up into the political process.'”

“Minor Error, Major Effect”: Today at the U.S. Law Week blog, Nicholas Datlowe has a post that begins, “Late Wednesday afternoon, April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a minor correction to the majority opinion in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 2016 BL 123436 (U.S. April 19, 2016).”

“Originalist or Original: The Difficulties of Reconciling Citizens United With Corporate Law History.” Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Delaware and Nicholas Walter have this article in the current issue of the Notre Dame Law Review.

“2nd Circuit Says Couple Can’t Keep Stolen Jewel”: Nick Rummell of Courthouse News Service has an article that begins, “A couple who owned a diamond stolen by a disgraced celebrity stylist never had a legitimate title to the stone and can’t sue to keep it, the Second Circuit ruled.”

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

“Get In Line, SCOTUS. This Court Has Been Waiting 2,296 Days For A Judge. A single Republican senator is behind the delays.” Jennifer Bendery of The Huffington Post has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court has been waiting two months for the Senate to do something about its empty seat. If you think that sounds like a long time, you haven’t heard about the federal circuit court in Wisconsin. It’s been waiting more than six years for a judge, and it’s not looking like Republicans will give the court one anytime soon, either.”

“Blood Tests and Bad Lawyering: The Supreme Court finds unity in the face of bumbling attorneys and a tough Fourth Amendment case.” Mark Joseph Stern has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Questions Punishments for Refusing Drunken-Driving Tests; Justices suggest officers should get warrants before conducting chemical tests for intoxication”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

And Allison Sherry of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Supreme Court takes hard look at Minn. implied-consent law; With the Supreme Court accepting the cases out of Minnesota and North Dakota, it appears the justices want to clear up the Fourth Amendment argument against unreasonable searches.”

“Supreme Court Upholds Arizona’s Redrawn Legislative Map”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds Arizona redistricting plan.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Districts Drawn by Independent Panel; Unanimous court rejects Republican claims map illegally favors Democrats.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court gives states leeway on political maps.”

Mary Jo Pitzl of The Arizona Republic reports that “Supreme Court upholds Arizona redistricting plan.”

Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Arizona’s redrawn legislative districts are legal.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona legislative districts.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Arizona Voting Map in Republican Setback.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court upholds Arizona legislative redistricting.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Unanimous Supreme Court Sets High Bar For Challenging Redistricting Maps.”

“Court won’t force release of more drone-killing info”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post today that begins, “A federal appeals court has rebuffed an effort to force the Obama administration to release more information about its policies for using deadly drone strikes, but the administration appears to be on the verge of a voluntary effort to make public some more detail about the program.”

“High court nominee praises lawyers for helping the poor”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Merrick Garland speaks — but not about the Supreme Court.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Garland speech may signal new phase in confirmation effort.”

And Zoe Tillman of The National Law Journal reports that “In Rare Public Remarks, Garland Urges Lawyers to Close Justice Gap; Supreme Court nominee mum on confirmation clash in Senate.”