“A Black Hole for Americans’ Rights Abroad”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

And at his “The Narrowest Grounds” blog, Asher Steinberg has a post titled “Nothing Plus Nothing Is Nothing: How the D.C. Circuit Got Bivens Wrong.”

“Plaintiffs to appeal House of Delegates boundaries case to U.S. Supreme Court”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report.

“UT to Supreme Court: We Need Affirmative Action.” The Texas Tribune has this report.

And The Daily Texan reports that “University files respondent brief in Fisher case.”

Ninth Circuit calls for response to plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc in O’Bannon v. NCAA: You can access yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The petition for rehearing en banc can be accessed here.

My earlier coverage of the partially divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Supreme Court Landmark Case Lochner v. New York“: C-SPAN has posted the video of last night’s broadcast, featuring law professor Randy E. Barnett, at this link.

“Supreme Court to hear appeal by midstate man who confessed to rape after cop lied to him”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this news update reporting on an order granting allowance of appeal that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

“Coming to SCOTUS: Battle of the dueling interpretive canons.” Neal Goldfarb has this post today at his “LAWnLinguistics” blog.

And at his “The Narrowest Grounds” blog, Asher Steinberg recently had posts titled “The Government Jumps off a Cliff in Lockhart v. U.S., and Why All Textualism is (Constructive) Intentionalism” and “Rethinking Lockhart.”

Seventh Circuit Judge Hamilton is female? So suggests Pennsylvania Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor (definitely not female) via his use of pronouns in an opinion concurring in the judgment issued today.

Although I have never met Seventh Circuit Judge Hamilton, given that his full name is David F. Hamilton, I had always assumed he was male.

On the other hand, Judge Hamilton’s middle initial stands for “Frank,” and Eleventh Circuit Judge Frank M. Hull is female.

Update: As invariably happens once an error is observed here at “How Appealing,” the official version of the concurring opinion has been corrected. The original version of the concurring opinion can be accessed here.

“State Supreme Court ruling is win for Arneson, loss for Wolf”: Jan Murphy of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this news update.

Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “Supreme Court: Wolf wrong to oust Open Records chief.”

Karen Langley of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “State’s high court rules governor overstepped authority in open records firing.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “Pa. Supreme Court says firing of open records director unlawful.”

Today’s 3-to-1 ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

“State Senator calls for Justice J. Michael Eakin to resign over role in email scandal”: Charles Thompson of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Democrats call for ouster of Pa. high court Justice Eakin.”

Programming note: Today, I will be arguing two unrelated appeals before the same three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. As a result, additional posts will appear here this evening.