“Third Circuit panel skeptical of felon’s right-to-carry claim; A public defender asked the appeals court to consider whether his client’s past crime of carrying an unlicensed firearm should rob him of the right to bear arms”: Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service has this report.

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via this link.

“Oregon city forces Supreme Court to contend with national homelessness crisis; The high court will balance a city’s police power against the rights of the unhoused”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“US Senate panel advances 7th Circuit nominee Maldonado”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“You’ll Never Guess Who Doesn’t Want to Repeal a Zombie Abortion Ban; Democrats are getting pressure from abortion rights groups to keep the Comstock Act in place”: Ben Metzner has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Conservatives Revolt Against Miers Nomination; A resounding no to George W. Bush’s ‘trust me’”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“The Fifth Circuit did the absolute least it should do this week — and that’s news; The court issued a trio of orders declining to have the full court review decisions that conservatives seeking to transform the law lost before three-judge panels”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“James Ho Accidentally Makes Powerful Case For Robust Judge-Shopping Reforms; Against all odds, the federal judge who once unironically used the phrase ‘woke Constitution’ has written something even dumber”: Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Women’s Rights Are Being Rolled Back to a Time Before Women Could Vote; If you thought overturning Roe was bad . . .” Jill Filipovic has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Fourth Circuit finds West Virginia ban on transgender athletes unconstitutional; A divided panel found West Virginia violates Title IX by excluding transgender student-athletes from participating in the teams of their choosing”: Joe Dodson of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Delay & Denials of Preliminary Injunctions: Perceived urgency for a ruling on a preliminary-injunction led the Fifth Circuit to conclude that the district court’s delay in deciding amounted to an appealable denial.” Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“Conservative US appeals court prods Supreme Court to review shield for US agency heads”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about an order denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Biden Sixth Circuit Pick Pressured by Republicans on Ethics; GOP alleges Kevin Ritz acted unethically in criminal case; Also asked about man killed alongside officer in shootout”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Benjamin S. Weiss of Courthouse News Service reports that “Blue slips off the table for Dems as Senate spars over Sixth Circuit nominee Ritz; Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were incensed that the White House moved forward with the appellate court appointment without consulting home state senators.”

“Biden resists pulling controversial judicial nominee Adeel Mangi despite Democrat defectors; Biden is not considering withdrawing his nomination of Adeel Mangi despite calls to do so”: Julia Johnson of Fox News has this report.

“Judge’s Citi Investment Doesn’t Merit Recusal, Ethics Panel Says; Judge Don Willett on 5th Cir. disclosed Citigroup investment; CFPB said judge should step aside from late fee rule challenge”: Evan Weinberger of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Heck & Judicial Estoppel in Qualified-Immunity Appeals: The Sixth Circuit joined the ‘no jurisdiction’ side of the split on whether courts can review Heck issues as part of a qualified-immunity appeal; But it probably went too far in reviewing a judicial-estoppel argument.” Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“The Supreme Court’s Big Gun Rights Decision Is a Waking Nightmare For Federal Judges; In courtrooms across the country, many of the gun laws that manage to survive Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ standard rely on some most deranged rationales imaginable”: Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Lawmakers seek disavowal of Supreme Court’s racist ‘Insular Cases’ that limited rights of people in U.S. territories; A series of early-1900s Supreme Court rulings included discriminatory language and helped ensure that people in U.S. territories would not have the same rights as other Americans”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket Gets a Radical Makeover; The court’s most conservative justices prefer to let unconstitutional laws take effect while the legal process plays out”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Trump’s Jan. 6 Case Could Go On Even if Court Limits Use of Obstruction Law; The federal indictment of Donald Trump for plotting to overturn the 2020 election relies in part on the law that the Supreme Court weighed on Tuesday, but was built to survive without it”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Adult entertainment industry asks Supreme Court to block Texas age-verification requirements for porn sites”: John Fritze of CNN has this report.

“US appeals court decision may deter M&A disclosure-only shareholder suits”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a decision that a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued Monday.

“Hundreds of Jan. 6 Prosecutions — Including Donald Trump’s — Are Suddenly in Peril at the Supreme Court”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “January 6 insurrectionists had a great day in the Supreme Court today; Most of the justices seem to want to make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters.”

“Supreme Court Justice Does Whatever He Felt Like Doing; Clarence Thomas provided no explanation for his absence from oral argument on Monday, which is somehow among his least offensive displays of contempt for the very concept of accountability”: Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“10 Fascinating Facts About SCOTUS to Tide Us Over Until the Justices Wreck the Country in June”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Bootlegging-Adjacent”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast via this link.

“Is the Bell Tolling for Universal Injunctions?” Samuel Bray has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Questions Jan. 6 Charge That Could Affect Hundreds of Cases; Justices to decide whether Enron-era obstruction law applies to rioters’ disruption of Congress.”

Bart Jansen of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court grapples with limits on obstruction charge in Jan. 6 cases; About 350 defendants, one-fourth of the total, have been charged with obstruction in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, so the high court’s decision could have a big impact.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court grapples with obstruction charge lobbed at 350 Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump.”

“The Sixth Circuit Tackles Forum Selection Clauses”: John F. Coyle has this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog.”

“Judge James C. Ho’s Remarks to the Midland County Bar Association”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” reprinting the prepared text of those remarks.

“New York judge says Trump can’t attend Supreme Court arguments on presidential immunity”: Ella Lee of The Hill has a report that begins, “The New York judge overseeing former President Trump’s hush money trial said Monday that Trump cannot attend arguments on presidential immunity at the Supreme Court next week.”

“Lawsuit asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down governor’s 400-year veto”: Scott Bauer of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Attorneys with Wisconsin’s largest business lobbying group asked the state Supreme Court on Monday to strike down Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ use of a partial veto to lock in a school funding increase for the next 400 years.”

“Supreme Court allows enforcement of Idaho ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors; The Idaho measure, which seeks to block treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, is one of more than 20 enacted by conservative states targeting care for transgender youth”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, at this link.

“2024 Vaughan Lecture: Joel Alicea, ‘The Natural Law Moment in Constitutional Theory.’” Harvard Law School has posted this video on YouTube.

“Judicial Notice (04.15.24): Get Off My Lawn; The disruptive protest at Chez Chemerinsky, Alex Spiro’s latest celebrity client, group hires by Hogan and Goodwin, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states; It is no longer safe to organize a protest in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.