“Beyond partisanship: How language affects U.S. Supreme Court justices.” Michigan Radio has this report.

“Nels Peterson’s appointment ups Cobb presence on Georgia Supreme Court”: Jon Gargis of The Marietta Daily Journal has this report.

“Markman to be Chief Justice of Mich. Supreme Court”: Holly Fournier of The Detroit News has this report.

“Alums Miller and Kentfield Land Coveted Supreme Court Clerkships”: Andrew Cohen of Berkeley Law has this report.

“Handicapping Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Shortlist”: David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

“UNBREAKING: 7th Circuit Recalls ‘Erroneously Issued’ Decision.” Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has this report about the Seventh Circuit‘s issuance, and then withdrawal, of its ruling in Ozinga v. Burwell on December 27, 2016.

Robinson’s article reports that “After the order withdrawing the opinion was posted, the erroneously issued opinion disappeared.” That’s true in one sense — the erroneously issued opinion cannot be accessed via that court’s opinion-access page today. But the opinion didn’t disappear instantaneously, if I recall correctly. It remained available for download from the Seventh Circuits web site for some time — many hours, indeed — even after the order withdrawing the opinion was posted.

Linking to the Bloomberg Law version of the now-withdrawn opinion, Robinson speculates that perhaps it was withdrawn because it contained typographical errors, citing as an example the opinion’s listing of the coram of the court as containing an extra period — “Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges..”

But that typo — sorry to say — appears to have been introduced by Bloomberg Law’s editing of the decision. The actual version of the opinion that the Seventh Circuit posted online on December 27, 2016 doesn’t contain two periods after “Circuit Judges” in the line listing the composition of the panel.

“Attorney general pick Sessions has dueling images”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court wars escalate”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court wars escalated this week when Democrats signaled they are ready to fight for the seat they believe should have gone to Merrick Garland, and already the prospect of the nuclear option is being discussed.”

“U.S. loses bid to overturn AmEx antitrust decision”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the U.S. government’s request that it reconsider its decision allowing American Express Co to stop merchants from encouraging customers to use rival cards that charge lower fees.”

“The Actuarial Life Expectancies of the SCOTUS Short List”: Josh Blackman has this blog post today, along with a post titled “With 15 Days Left in Office, Solicitor General Files Cert Petition in 2nd Amendment Case.”

“Can States Make People Pay Even When Their Convictions Are Overturned? The Supreme Court considers whether states that charge inmates with fees and restitution have to return that money if their convictions are set aside.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.