“Colleagues, even if you don’t like circuit precedent, you must follow it. Afterwards, you call the case en banc. You cannot create your own contrary precedent.” So begins a dissenting opinion that Ninth Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith issued today.

“GOP Senators: No hearing, no vote for Obama Court pick.” The Associated Press has this report.

Reuters has a report headlined “Senate won’t confirm any Obama Supreme Court nominee: McConnell.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Post-Scalia, Senate Republicans See Tough Optics on Blockade.”

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Taylor v. United States, No. 14-6166: At this link.

“The behind-the-scenes politics of picking a Supreme Court justice”: Joan Biskupic has a post at “The Great Debate” blog of Reuters that begins, “As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was being eulogized and President Barack Obama had begun reviewing files on his potential successor, a chance meeting led me to recall a memo Patrick Buchanan, an advisor to President Ronald Reagan, wrote 30 years ago recommending Scalia.”

“Supreme Court to decide whether Roanoke robbery convictions will stand”: Columnist Dan Casey has this essay online at The Roanoke Times.

“Here’s who should replace Antonin Scalia”: Law professor Michael J. Broyde has this essay at CNN.com.

“An Historic Attempt To Kill Roe v. Wade May Backfire Spectacularly On The Anti-Choice Right”: Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress has this post today.

“Do Women Need Legislative ‘Protection’?” Emily Bazelon had this “First Words” essay in this past Sunday’s edition of The New York Times Magazine.

“Why not have a Justice Howard Stern?” Columnist Ginnie Graham has this essay online at The Tulsa World.

“Antonin Scalia, Judicial Activist? In Defense of the Late Justice — and the Rule of Law.” Evan Bernick has this entry online at The Huffington Post.

“The Matthew Stephenson Moment”: At the “Balkinization” blog, Richard Primus recently had a post in which he writes, “It’s hard to foresee what might happen if a President said ‘From now on, I’m going to deem my nominees appointed unless they are affirmative rejected by the Senate within ninety days.’ It might not be pretty. And maybe we will never get that far. But whether it’s that escalation or a different one, the important point is that escalations in the separation-of-powers game are likely to produce further escalations, especially when the stakes are high and politically salient, and especially in a particular domain — judicial confirmations — where escalation responding to escalation is already the established dynamic.”

“Rules of Engagement: Exploring judicial use of social media.” Attorney John G. Browning and Justice Don Willett of the Supreme Court of Texas have this article in the February 2016 issue of Texas Bar Journal.

“Argument preview: When must a prosecutor-turned-judge recuse from a capital case?” Richard M. Re has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Obama admin wins jurisdiction fight over contentious rule”: Tiffany Stecker and Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire have this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court to consider challenge to federal water rules.”

Timothy Cama of The Hill reports that “Court to hear case against Obama’s water rule.”

And Courthouse News Service reports that “6th Circuit to Review EPA Clean Water Rule.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — in which each of the judges on the panel wrote separately — at this link.

“Supreme Court fight has lawmakers doing somersaults”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Appellate court reinstates voters’ wishes on prisoner parole”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

Denny Walsh of The Sacramento Bee reports that “Appeals court reverses judge’s decision invalidating state parole laws.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court Upholds State’s Stricter Limits on Parole Hearings.”

And Courthouse News Service reports that “9th Circ. OKs Longer Parole Waits in Calif.”

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

“Court revives reverse-payment case over Loestrin”: Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday.

“Colorado can enforce its ‘Amazon tax’ law — U.S. appeals court”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday.

Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion.

“No need for nine on the Supreme Court”: Law professor Richard Albert has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“Have Obama’s Supreme Court Picks Really Been Silent on Abortion? There’s no public record of several jurists discussing the court’s most divisive opinion: Roe v. Wade; But the ‘abortion question’ is part of the problem of how we pick jurists.” Jay Michaelson has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

“Could Surname Be Key in Republican Supreme Court Race?” Online at The Texas Tribune, Ross Ramsey has this essay today.

“Senate Republicans signal no vote on Supreme Court nominee”: Erin Kelly of USA Today has this report.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis of The New York Times reports that “Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992.”

And Mike DeBonis of The Washington Post has an article headlined “Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year.”

“Would Scalia Say This Was an Illegal Search?” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Abortion foes’ strategy faces a key test at the Supreme Court”: Sandhya Somashekhar of The Washington Post has this report.

“Grief Gives Way to Division in First Court Arguments Since Scalia’s Death”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court reconvenes without Scalia, ‘our man for all seasons.’”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Pays Tribute to Justice Scalia in First Session Since Death; Chief justice spent several minutes recounting Scalia’s career before hearing arguments.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “On first day without Scalia, Supreme Court faces a possible tie vote.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the Courtroom: The Justices return to a black and gray bench.”

“Closing Curtain on Conservative Activism”: Kenneth Jost had this post yesterday at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Supreme Court without Scalia divided over giving police more leeway to stop people”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “On first day without Scalia, Supreme Court faces a possible tie vote.”

“UCILAW: The Supreme Court and the 2016 Elections.” Now on YouTube, “UCI Law Professor Rick Hasen and Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a conservative D.C. think tank, [are offering] perspectives on the Supreme Court and the 2016 elections.”

“Scalia lauded as shorthanded Supreme Court returns to work”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Utah v. Strieff, No. 14-1373: At this link.

“Supreme Court resumes without Scalia”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-916: At this link.

There are two instances of laughter in the transcript (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer).

“Chief Justice pays tribute to late Supreme Court colleague Scalia”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“More on the end of originalism”: Eric Posner has this blog post today.

“Appoint a few more Scalias, kiss democracy goodbye”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this post online today at “The Great Debate” blog of Reuters.