“U.S. justices consider taking Obama appeal on immigration action”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Court reinstates man’s conviction in sexual abuse of disabled niece”: Cronkite News has this report.

And Courthouse News Service reports that “Sexual Abuse Verdict Reinstated by 9th Circ.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in which Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski issued a dissenting opinion, at this link.

“Porn Mogul Wins Battle With Brother Over Flynt Name”: Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

“How Some Would Level the Playing Field: Free Harvard Degrees.” Stephanie Saul will have this front page article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Kathleen Kane’s law license suspension appeal moving through court”: Steve Esack of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this news update.

“Memorandum: Is Ted Cruz Eligible for the Presidency? A legal scholar offers a thorough look at a complicated question.” Bryan A. Garner has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media.” Did I visit Atlanta one month too early? On Thursday, February 11, 2016, the Georgia State University Law Review will host this symposium. You can view the agenda for that day’s events at this link.

“Dueling and Discovery”: John Paul Schnapper-Casteras had this post Tuesday at the “ACSBlog.”

“Constitution Check: Is the Supreme Court Obama’s silent partner on gun control?” Lyle Denniston had this post Tuesday at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

And today at that blog, Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: What is the answer to political ‘rancor and suspicion’?”

“Ted Cruz Is a Natural-Born Citizen: Whatever the Founders may have thought, contemporary law is perfectly clear on this point.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Supreme Tantrum: The Virginia legislature is about to oust a well-respected female judge just to spite the governor.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“A flawed death penalty system: Why Florida will have to rethink its approach to executions.” Steven Mazie had this post yesterday at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“In New Rule, a ‘Proportional’ Search for Truth”: Kenneth Jost had this post recently at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Justices Hear Case Over Puerto Rico’s Sovereignty”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court divided over Puerto Rico’s autonomy.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court raises doubts over Puerto Rico sovereignty.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Could Decide Political Fate Of 3.5 Million Puerto Ricans.”

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Jess Bravin has a post titled “Supreme Court Asks: What is Puerto Rico to Washington?”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Puerto Rico — special no more?”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Supreme Court dispatch titled “Second-Class Sovereignty — The Supreme Court grapples with America’s biggest colonial hangover: The legal status of Puerto Rico.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “What’s Fair for Iowa Is Fair for Puerto Rico.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, No. 15-108.

“Feds: Conman filed bogus appeal in stranger’s case.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A convicted Pennsylvania conman now awaiting trial on charges he stalked an FBI agent by placing a phony Craigslist sex ad has now also been charged with filing a fake appeal.”

“U.S. Supreme Court gives boost to child slave labor case against Nestle”: Reuters has this report.

“Appeals court could complicate Clinton email litigation”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court appears poised to issue a ruling that could complicate and prolong the litigation morass surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account during her tenure as secretary of state.”

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit posts online the audio from today’s oral argument of this case before a three-judge panel, I will link to it.

“Baltimore City commission recommends removal of two Confederate monuments”: Luke Broadwater of The Baltimore Sun has this news update.

According to the article, “The seven-member commission, appointed by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, narrowly voted Thursday to remove the Roger B. Taney Monument on Mount Vernon Place and the Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson Monument in the Wyman Park Dell.”

“Lawyer for Iran’s Central Bank Faces Skepticism at Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes reports that “Justices weigh Congress’s right to pass a law helping victims of Iran terrorism.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Iran terrorism compensation case divides Supreme Court.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Terror Victim Legislation; Chief Justice Roberts voices concern about Congressional intervention in victim litigation on Iranian banking assets.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court hears Iran victims compensation case.”

Sam Baker of National Journal has a report headlined “In Congress’s Supreme Court Fight with Iran, Chief Roberts Is Skeptical of Congress;Roberts: If Congress can meddle in the Iran lawsuit, does that mean it can also tell me how to rule on Obamacare?”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “In Iranian Funds Case, Justices Ponder Extent Of Congressional Influence.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Flirting with congressional supremacy.”

“Supreme Court refuses to ease filing fees for prisoners”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruce v. Samuels, No. 14-844, at this link.

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Florida Death Penalty”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court finds Florida’s capital punishment process unconstitutional.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Florida’s death penalty system.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court deals blow to Florida’s death sentencing system.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Florida Death-Sentencing Procedure; Ruling says jury verdict, not judge’s discretion, necessary for imposition of death sentence.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchyDC reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Florida’s way of imposing death sentences.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “US Supreme Court deals blow to death penalty in Florida case; The US Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 Tuesday against a controversial legal procedure used in Florida death penalty cases.”

David Ovalle of The Miami Herald reports that “High court orders Florida to overhaul death penalty decisions.”

Steve Bousquet of The Tampa Bay Times reports that “Chaos and uncertainty cloud Florida’s death penalty after Supreme Court ruling.” And Anna M. Phillips of The Tampa Bay Times reports that “Supreme Court decision likely to lead to fewer death penalty verdicts, experts say.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has a report headlined “High court: Florida death penalty system is unconstitutional.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Florida death sentence process.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Florida Death-Sentence System Voided by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Florida’s Death Sentencing Scheme Is Unconstitutional, Supreme Court Rules; Allowing judges instead of juries to impose the death penalty violates the Sixth Amendment.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Florida’s Death Penalty System.”

Yesterday at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston had a post titled “Opinion analysis: Juries control the death penalty.”

And online at Bloomberg News, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “The End of the Death Penalty Isn’t Near.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505, at this link.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal is reporting: In yesterday’s newspaper, he had articles headlined “Supreme Court Denies Appeal on Student-Loan Erasure; Court won’t consider appeal by unemployed Wisconsin man who owes more than $260,000 in student-loan debt” and “Supreme Court Denies Nestle, Cargill, ADM Appeal in Slave Labor Case; Appeals court had revived lawsuit alleging the companies aided child slave labor abuses in the Ivory Coast.”

“Supreme Court passes on another dormant Commerce Clause test”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight had this report yesterday.

“Justice Michael Eakin’s email ethics case witness list unveiled”: The Associated Press has this report.

Yesterday’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News contained an editorial titled “Eakin’s lawyer seems to forget that some judges are women.”

Yesterday’s edition of The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania contained an editorial titled “Judging the courts.”

And recently in The Pocono Record, Anne Marie Zenie had a letter to the editor titled “Eakin must go permanently from court.”

“Recognition: How a travesty led to criminal-justice innovation in Texas.” Paul Kix has this “Annals of Justice” article in the January 18, 2016 issue of The New Yorker.

“The Second Amendment: Original Intent.” John Quaintance had this post online recently at The New Yorker.

Dear Third Circuit — A decision in the expedited Trump Taj Mahal appeal argued over 10 months ago will be greatly appreciated: How does one tell a federal appellate court that it should hurry-up and decide a case? The common answer is you don’t. But sometimes, someone finds a way to communicate the message For example, in the appeal captioned In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., No. 14-4807 (3d. Cir.) (argued March 4, 2015), counsel for debtors Roy T. Englert, Jr. sent this letter to the court last week.

And in related commentary, today’s edition of The Atlantic City Press contains an editorial titled “Taj Mahal, workers and industry need bankruptcy decision soon.”

“9th Circuit panel stands up for open courts in Chrysler unseal opinion”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Duke Law selected to co-host annual education program for judges”: Duke Law School recently issued this news release about the Appellate Judges Education Institute. Duke’s affiliation with AJEI will begin in 2017.

The 2016 AJEI Summit will be taking place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in November 2016. I am on the planning committee for the 2016 Philadelphia Summit, and I will be in Dallas on January 25 and 26 for a planning committee meeting.

“Next up at the Supreme Court: Obama’s Immigration Policy; The court’s past rulings on Obamacare could prove decisive in a case that is up for consideration this week.” Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Obama nominates Madison lawyer for 7th Circuit vacancy”: Craig Gilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

Ed Treleven of The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “Madison lawyer nominated for federal appeals court post.”

And Maureen Groppe of The Indianapolis Star reports that “Obama nominates Indiana lawyers to federal bench.”

The White House yesterday issued a news release titled “President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals.”

“U.S. court struggles over Iran bank’s bid to block payout to attack victims”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770.

In re: my recent visit to Atlanta. Yesterday, Atlanta did warm-up to the mid-50s, allowing me to enjoy a touch of warmer weather before heading back to the frigid northeast, where my drive home from Philadelphia’s airport was through snow showers.

For those demanding photographic proof of my recent visit to Atlanta, the Federalist Society-Emory Law Chapter has posted to its Facebook page this image of me and law professor Sasha Volokh, who kindly coordinated my visit. Also, my remarks were videotaped by C-SPAN (!!!) for broadcast at a later date on a particularly slow news day.

And here’s an image of me posing in front of the scales of justice from Emory Law‘s Twitter feed. In 2016, the law school is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its founding, and I was pleased to be one of the first invited guests to speak at the school this year.

“Iran Terrorism Award Clash Divides U.S. High Court Justices”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem divided over Iran terror-related appeal.”

“Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Judgments Against Iran”: Barry Meier has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Victims of Iran terror attacks take case to Supreme Court.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Iran central bank takes Beirut bombing case to U.S. Supreme Court.”