“The Growing Mess of the Supreme Court’s Contraception Case”: Jesse Wegman has this post today at the “Taking Note” blog of The New York Times.

“Merrick Garland heard Trump campaign manager’s appeal over gun in 2003”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh: Garland ‘Supremely Qualified’ for Supreme Court.” Zoe Tillman of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Mason Receives $30 Million in Gifts, Renames School of Law After Justice Antonin Scalia; Largest Combined Gift in University’s History Will Support New Scholarship Programs”: George Mason University today issued a news release which states that “In recognition of this historic gift, the Board of Visitors has approved the renaming of the school to The Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.”

And at the “Grade Point” blog of The Washington Post, Susan Svrluga has an entry titled “George Mason law school to be renamed the Antonin Scalia School of Law.”

“Sasse: Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ‘dead on arrival.'” Chris Dunker of The Lincoln Journal Star has an article that begins, “Following an hourlong lecture on restoring the original intent of the Constitution at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Sen. Ben Sasse on Thursday said President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court would not reach a vote of the full Senate.”

“The Supreme Court vacancy is just the tip of the iceberg”: Online at The Baltimore Sun, Tommy Tobin has an essay that begins, “The unfilled vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, while the most talked about right now, is just the latest in a long line of unfilled seats on the federal bench.”

“Constitution Check: Is Ted Cruz’s eligibility for the presidency a serious issue?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“What’s the California Supreme Court thinking? One justice gives us a clue.” In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan has an article that begins, “Cases the California Supreme Court declines to review may be as important as the court’s full-blown rulings, especially to the litigants. But little is known about why the court rejects certain appeals.”

“Justice Kagan Just Wrote The Most Interesting SCOTUS Opinion Of The Year”: Ian Millhiser has this post online today at ThinkProgress.

“Grassley leads slowdown of judicial confirmations”: In today’s edition of The Des Moines Register, Jason Noble has a front page article that begins, “Even before the current controversy over consideration of a Supreme Court justice, action on federal court nominations has slowed markedly since U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley took control of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

“Supreme Court struggles with just eight justices”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Programming note; On Thursday morning, I will be traveling to Chicago, where, on Friday, Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal and I will be guest speakers at the Supreme Court Clinic of the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

As a result, additional posts will appear here on Thursday afternoon. In the interim, appellate-related updates likely will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

Fourth Circuit affirms district court’s refusal to transfer juvenile for adult prosecution for murder in aid of racketeering because the mandatory penalties for that crime cannot lawfully be imposed on a juvenile: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court Seen Easing Path to Challenge Some Environmental Regulations; Justices to decide on case regarding restrictions under the Clean Water Act”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court sympathetic to property owner in wetlands dispute.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Justices Suggest Support for Landowners in Wetlands Case.”

And The Associated Press reports that “High court sympathetic to property owners in wetlands case.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., No. 15-290.

“The Supreme Court’s Plea for Health Insurance Help: The justices are split — and desperate to find a solution that works for religious nonprofits and the government in a battle over birth control.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And online at The Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough has an essay titled “The Supreme Court floats a contraception compromise.”

“The Supreme Court needs a ninth justice immediately”: The Washington Post has this editorial.

“A Supreme Court Hijacking”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing Assets Not Tied to Crimes”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court limits when the government can freeze defendants’ assets.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court says ‘untainted’ assets of fraud suspects can be unfrozen, used to defend self.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules Assets Unrelated to Crimes Cannot Be Frozen; 5-3 decision found the right to counsel trumps government’s interest in preserving funds for restitution.”

James Rosen of McClatchyDC reports that “Supreme Court rules for Miami defendant in Medicare fraud case.”

Sam Hananel of The Asociated Press has an article headlined “Justices: Government can’t freeze assets unrelated to crimes.”

Matt Ford of The Atlantic has an article headlined “A Near-Epiphany at the Supreme Court: The justices come close to recognizing the perilous state of the American public-defense system.”

At Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “White-Collar Defendants Win As Supreme Court Protects ‘Untainted’ Money.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “You’re Presumed Innocent. Is Your Money?”

You can access at this link today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Luis v. United States, No. 14-419. And you can access the oral argument of the case via this link.

“The Reverse Bartleby: A modest proposal for how Merrick Garland can outfox Republican obstructionists.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Coffee juggler can’t sue Sheetz over scalding, Pa. court says”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an article that begins, “Concluding that her own inadvisable juggling act led to her injury, a state appeals court panel has refused to revive a lawsuit by a student who spilled scalding coffee on herself at a Sheetz convenience store.”

You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“White House maps out next phase of Court fight; The administration feels like it has the advantage — and plans to press the pace in April”: Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico.com has this report.

And online at Politico Magazine, law professor Richard Primus has an essay titled “The Supreme Court: The Nightmare Scenario; A year without a justice is the least of our worries; We could be in for a full-scale constitutional meltdown.”

“How we’ll know who’s right about advice and consent”: Law professor Jamal Greene has this op-ed online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Constitution Check: If the Supreme Court splits 4-to-4, does anybody win?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Shirley Hufstedler, R.I.P.” Today at his “Southern California Appellate News” blog, Ben Shatz has a post that begins, “Shirley Hufstedler — a giant in the legal profession and of her generation — passed away this morning.”

In addition to her other accomplishments, Hufstedler served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from September 1968 to December 1979.

“‘Docs v. Glocks’ law heading to federal appeals court in June”: Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida has an article that begins, “Readying for oral arguments in June, attorneys for the state and Second Amendment groups are urging a full federal appeals court to uphold a 2011 Florida law that would restrict doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.”

“Pa. court reverses death sentence in gruesome murder”: Michaelle Bond of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court reversed a death sentence of a Coatesville man convicted of fatally shooting his teenage neighbor in 2008 and dismembering the body with a chainsaw.”

And Michael Rellahan of The Daily Local News of West Chester, Pennsylvania reports that “Death penalty vacated in chain saw death in Coatesville.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“From judge to justice: the case for Merrick Garland.” Law professor Laurence H. Tribe has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“Testing Territorial Limits: A crop of court cases could change the relationship between the United States and its territories.” Vann R. Newkirk II of The Atlantic has this report.

“Alabama’s Death Penalty Needs to Go: In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling against judicial override in Florida, one state remains where judges alone can decide life or death.” Ashley Cleek has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Pa. justice: Review Porngate emails of every judge and lawyer.” In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mark Fazlollah has a front page article that begins, “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Debra McCloskey Todd said Tuesday that she had urged the Judicial Conduct Board and the disciplinary board for lawyers to review the emails of every judge and lawyer involved in the Porngate scandal, which has cost two of her colleagues their seats on the high court.”

Programming note: On Wednesday, I will be arguing an appeal before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Additional posts will appear here by late Wednesday afternoon.

At 10 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more rulings in argued cases. The decisions will be available via this link just as soon as the Court posts them online.

“Supreme Court Hints at Way to Avert Tie on Birth Control Mandate”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Reality of a divided Supreme Court: A split decision and a search for compromise.”

And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Struggles to Deal With 4-4 Split; A pair of developments revealed the new dynamic of a court equally divided between conservatives and liberals.”

“Kirk becomes first GOP senator to meet with Garland”: Lisa Mascaro of The Chicago Tribune has this report.

Columnist Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times has an essay titled “Senate GOP must be ‘rational’ about court pick, Kirk says.”

The Associated Press reports that “Garland holds first meeting with GOP senator, Kirk of Ill.”

Reuters reports that “Senator Kirk criticizes fellow Republicans on Garland boycott.”

And Burgess Everett of Politico.com reports that “Kirk rips ‘closed-minded’ GOP on Garland nomination.”

“How Democrats could force a Supreme Court vote; Sen. Grassley expects them to use a rare procedural maneuver to press the issue”: Seung Min Kim of Politico.com has this report.

“Texas AG files Supreme Court brief against Obama immigration plan”: Lomi Kriel of The Houston Chronicle has this report.

You can access the Brief for the State Respondents filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.