“‘Pink slime’ defamation trial set to start in South Dakota”: James Nord of The Associated Press has this report.

And in local coverage, Nick Hytrek of The Sioux City (Iowa) Journal reports that “BPI defamation case vs. ABC set for trial.”

“Appeals court sides with transgender student in Wis. school bathroom case”: Emma Brown of The Washington Post has this report.

Joe Palazzolo of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Sides With Transgender High School Student in Wisconsin; Appeals court ruled unanimously in favor of 17-year-old Ash Whitaker in Kenosha bathroom case.”

Cara Lombardo of The Associated Press reports that “Transgender student wins appeal in final week of school.”

Jonathan Allen of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court sides with transgender student in bathroom case.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Federal Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of Transgender Student; A big ruling in the fight for transgender rights — over Ash Whitaker’s ‘simple request: to use the boys’ restroom while at school.’”

And Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Transgender Teen Wins Landmark Ruling Over Right To Use Boys Bathroom; An appeals court ruled that both the Constitution and federal law protect trans students from discrimination.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Court of Appeals hears arguments on physician-assisted suicide”: Yancey Roy of Newsday has this report.

Tom Precious of The Buffalo News reports that “NY’s high court hears arguments in closely watched assisted suicide case.”

David Klepper of The Associated Press reports that “New York’s high court hears physician-assisted suicide case.”

And Matthew Hamilton of The Times Union of Albany, New York previewed today’s oral argument in the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — in an article headlined “N.Y.’s highest court to hear ‘aid in dying’ appeal.”

“Supreme Court rules statutory rape does not automatically trigger deportation”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And Kate Irby of McClatchyDC has an article headlined “He had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend and was almost deported. Now he can stay.”

“How Trump Gave the Supreme Court a Second Chance on Japanese Internment: The president’s travel ban gives Anthony Kennedy an opening to right a historical wrong.” Law professor Richard Primus has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

He was a victim of circumstances: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court suspends wrong lawyer over ‘mistaken identity.’” According to the article, this does not mark the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has initiated attorney disciplinary proceedings against the wrong person.

“Esquivel-Quintana and Chevron Avoidance”: Asher Steinberg has this post at his blog, “The Narrowest Grounds.”

In today’s mail: I received a copy (more accurately, I received two identical copies) of the Fall 2016 issue of The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process.

The issue includes, among other things, an essay from Senior First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez based on his remarks in this 2016 Constitution Day Lecture.

And law professor Edward T. Swaine has an interesting article titled “Infrequently Asked Questions” about what judges might do to help improve the usefulness of oral argument on appeal.

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from attorney Elaine Mittleman:

You must realize how much your blog is used and appreciated based on the many emails you have received congratulating you on the 15th anniversary of the blog.

I rely on your blog for a thorough and efficient source of information and articles about important legal issues and decisions. One aspect of the blog I particularly appreciate is that I can be sure that your blog is not pushing an agenda or perspective, but is designed to inform and present a variety of perspectives. The scope of its coverage is remarkable.

An unmatched achievement is the 20 Questions series. I think that this series has provided a unique and irreplaceable perspective about important judges. The 20 Questions with Judge Richard S. Arnold includes such a meaningful discussion. I relied on the 20 Questions when I wrote about Judge Arnold.

Thank you for your continued energy and dedication in writing How Appealing.

Elaine, thanks so very much for your wonderful email and for being a faithful reader of the blog for so many years. Because tomorrow will be the last day of May — the month in which this blog celebrates its birthday — I will be posting the final reader email in this blog’s 15th birthday commemoration series tomorrow.

“The Next Ginsburg and Scalia? Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito look like they’re becoming the best of frenemies.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Access today’s rulings in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued rulings in four argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, No. 16-369. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is the first merits opinion in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch participated. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, No. 16-54. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1189. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Recalibrating Judicial Renominations in the Trump Administration”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this article at the Washington and Lee Law Review Online.

“It Matters How and When SCOTUS Reviews the Muslim Ban”: Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case and requested the views of the Acting Solicitor General in one case.

The final entry on today’s Order List pertained to the subject of Attorney Discipline:

Due to mistaken identity, the order suspending Christopher Patrick Sullivan of Boston, Massachusetts from the practice of law in this Court, dated May 15, 2017, is vacated and the Rule to Show Cause issued on that date is discharged.

It was a case of mistaken identity!

In early news coverage, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Voter-Purge Effort by Ohio Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review” and “Tilton Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on SEC Fraud Complaint.”