“At age 92, Judge Manuel Real is still abusing his power”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“A ‘Wayne’s World’ Argument at the Supreme Court”: Gilad Edelman has this post online at The New Yorker.

“U.S. high court approves rule change to expand FBI hacking power”: Reuters has this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “FBI Computer Searches Expanded Under New U.S. Supreme Court Rule.”

“White House allies make new push for Garland; Groups to blitz nine states with ads, events to pressure GOP to allow a vote on Supreme Court nominee”: Edward-Isaac Dovere of Politico.com has this report today.

“Baldwin, Johnson bitterly joust over appeals court vacancy”: In today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Craig Gilbert has a front page article that begins, “Wisconsin’s two U.S. senators are blaming each other in unusually harsh terms over the failure to fill the nation’s oldest vacancy in the federal appeals courts, a marathon six-year impasse that now seems likely to drag on.”

“WI John Doe Cert. Petition Raises Substantial Questions, But #SCOTUS May Not Bite”: Rick Hasen has this post today at his “Election Law Blog.”

And in related news coverage, Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Prosecutors ask U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Doe decision.”

And in today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal, Matthew DeFour has a front page article headlined “Prosecutors appeal John Doe decision to U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Justice Breyer Stresses Globality”: The Hoya, the student newspaper of Georgetown University, has an article that begins, “Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the court should take a more global perspective in legal deliberations and defended the responsibility of the court to uphold the rule of law in a conversation hosted by the department of government as part of the Marver H. Bernstein Symposium in Gaston Hall on Thursday.”

“Obama’s Iran-Contra: The president is spending money that Congress has explicitly told him he can’t spend.” Marc Zilversmit has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Supreme Court Challenge for Democrats: Ending ugly confirmation battles would be good for the high court; But a truce cannot be one-sided.” In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Theodore B. Olson has an op-ed that begins, “The relentless partisan warfare over Supreme Court appointments, including the latest manifestation involving Judge Merrick Garland, is disheartening, damaging to the court and corrosive to civil discourse.”

You can freely access the full text of the op-ed via Google.

“Breathalyzers, Textalyzers and the Constitution”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“What’s in a Name Change? Politics, Some at George Mason University Fear.” Nicholas Fandos has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Chuck Grassley Admits It’s ‘A Gamble’ To Let Trump Fill SCOTUS Vacancy”: Jennifer Bendery of The Huffington Post has this report.

“‘Scalia Law School’ Sparks Faculty Feud at George Mason; School nixed plans to name scholarship for liberal Justice Ginsburg”: Jacob Gershman and Jess Bravin have this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Obama’s Push for Court Pick Fizzles as Republicans Stand Firm”: Mike Dorning and Tim Higgins of Bloomberg News have a report that begins, “A media blitz by the White House and its allies has failed to crack Republican opposition to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and it is all but certain the seat will remain vacant until after U.S. elections in November.”

“Justices Lean Toward Bob McDonnell, Ex-Virginia Governor, in Corruption Case”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court justices seem skeptical of McDonnell’s conviction.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court may make prosecuting bribery cases against public officials tougher.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Looks Likely to Throw Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s Conviction; McDonnell was convicted in 2014 on 11 corruption counts after he and his wife accepted gifts.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “High court appears likely to ease public corruption rules in McDonnell case.”

Frank Green and Jim Nolan of The Richmond Times-Dispatch report that “Skeptical Supreme Court looks for legal standard in McDonnell case.” In addition, Nolan has an article headlined “McDonnell relies on faith, family, friends as he gets his day at Supreme Court.”

Patrick Wilson of The Virginian-Pilot reports that “Supreme Court justices set skeptical tone during Bob McDonnell hearing.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court poised to overturn Virginia ex-governor’s bribery conviction.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court May Raise Bar for Corruption Prosecutions.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court seems poised to overturn McDonnell conviction.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court sympathetic to former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court justices appear to be leaning in McDonnell’s favor.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “McDonnell’s Supreme Court Appeal Could Change Politics; Case hinges on what qualifies as an ‘official action’ under bribery and fraud laws.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Convicted Gov. Bob McDonnell May Just Convince The Supreme Court He’s Innocent; The former Virginia governor’s appeal could redefine the rules of government corruption.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Skeptical Of Former Virginia Governor’s Prosecution; Justice Stephen Breyer says the challenge to former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell corruption conviction has broad implications for the power of federal prosecutors; The case presents ‘as fundamental a real separation of powers problem as I’ve seen,’ the justice says.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court May Be Leaning Toward Voiding Ex-Va. Governor’s Corruption Conviction.”

Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” has a post titled “Argument analysis: Anti-corruption law in trouble?”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch titled “The ‘Everybody Does It’ Defense: The Supreme Court might let Bob McDonnell off the hook because it can’t even define political corruption anymore.”

And at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “The Supreme Court seems inclined to loosen bribery rules for politicians.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474.

“When Smart Supreme Court Justices Play Dumb”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online today at The New York Times.

“‘Star Trek’ Lawsuit: The Debate Over Klingon Language Heats Up.” Eriq Gardner has this post today at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“Roy Moore says complaint on gay marriage order politically motivated”: Howard Koplowitz of AL.com has this report.

And Josh Moon of The Montgomery Advertiser has an article headlined “Moore: Judicial complaints are politically motivated.”

“Drug charges against Chief Justice Roy Moore’s son dropped”: Kent Faulk of The Birmingham News has this report.

“Free Speech for Bad People”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Constitution Check: Can the Supreme Court compromise on corruption?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Supreme Court Strikes Blow for Free Speech — and Against Arbitrary Government”: Evan Bernick has this blog entry online today at The Huffington Post.

“D.C. Circuit’s Kavanaugh Not Afraid to Say No to Obama”: Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“With Court Ruling, Sodomy Law Doesn’t Apply When Victim Is Unconscious”: Clifton Adcock of Oklahoma Watch has this report.

And Molly Redden of The Guardian (UK) has an article headlined “Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking; The ruling sparked outrage among critics who argue the judicial system engaged in victim-blaming and upholding outdated notions about rape and sexual assault.”

You can access last month’s ruling of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals — that state’s highest court in criminal cases — at this link.

“Professors Rail Against Renaming Law School After Antonin Scalia, Taking Koch Money; The faculty senate at George Mason University just voted 21-13 to reopen the naming process of the law school”: Dan Vergano of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Highest military court hears Marine’s religious freedom case”: Dianna Cahn of Stars and Stripes has this report.

Bill Mears of FoxNews.com has an article headlined “Court-martialed for expressing faith? Court hears ex-Marine’s religious freedom case.”

Zoe Tillman of The National Law Journal reports that “Paul Clement, On Unfamiliar Ground, Makes Religious Freedom Case in Military Court; Dispute over U.S. Marine’s posting of Bible-inspired text in her work space tests religious freedom law in the military.”

And earlier, Michael Doyle of McClatchyDC previewed the case in a report headlined “Bible-citing Marine raises religious freedom questions in appeal.”

“Digital publisher not liable for freelancers’ infringement — 10th Circuit”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

My earlier post — which Frankel’s report kindly mentions — about Monday’s Tenth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Dangerous New Uses for Government Eavesdropping”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Justices Rule First Amendment Protects Officer Demoted in Misunderstanding”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey reports that “Paterson faces possible $2M expense after Supreme Court ruling in cop’s free speech case.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Rules Political Speech Is Protected Even If You Didn’t Actually Speak; What matters is the motive of those who sought to punish you.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Sides With Police Officer In Yard Sign Case.”

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court Protects Unspoken Free Speech.”

“Sunstein’s False Claim that Scalia Was a Living Constitutionalist”: Law professor John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Library of Law and Liberty” blog.

Redesigned Seventh Circuit web site coming soon: An announcement displayed on the home page of the web site of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit states, “The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is in the process of reconstructing its website. The new site will debut at the end of this week. Any bookmarks to items on our current website will most likely need to be recreated.”

Now one could quibble with the use of the term “reconstructing,” whose primary meaning suggests that the court’s current web site has been damaged or destroyed. My main hope, however, is that the opinion selection options for “last week” and “last month” are replaced with the more accurate descriptions of “past week” and “past month.”

“What Happens When There Aren’t Enough Judges to Go Around: 84 federal vacancies, and a glacial confirmation rate, put extra stress on some districts.” Eli Hager of The Marshall Project has this news analysis.

Proposal to increase Pennsylvania’s judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 has been defeated in non-binding voter referendum: According to statistics available from the web site of Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, with 98.78 percent of all voter districts reporting statewide, voters yesterday rejected the amendment to Pennsylvania’s Constitution that would have increased the mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 by a vote of 1,211,231 (50.98%) against to 1,164,818 for (49.02%).

A total of 2,376,049 voters voted on the amendment. By contrast, a total of 2,401,893 voters voted on the other constitutional amendment on yesterday’s Pennsylvania statewide ballot, to abolish Philadelphia’s Traffic Court.

However, yesterday’s vote to reject an increase in Pennsylvania’s judicial retirement age doesn’t count for reasons explained in this post of mine from earlier this month. At my polling place, I did not see any signs informing voters that the ballot question had been withdrawn from the primary ballot, and as noted above the judicial retirement age amendment received only a total of 25,844 fewer votes than the Philadelphia Traffic Court amendment that actually counted. Even if all of those withheld votes had gone to approve the retirement age increase, the proposal still would have lost under the current vote totals.

For reasons stated in my “Upon Further Review” column published this month in The Legal Intelligencer titled “Delay of Vote on Judicial Retirement Age Could Make One Cynical.” I applaud Pennsylvania voters for “rejecting” the proposed five-year extension of Pennsylvania’s judicial retirement age. Now Pennsylvania voters merely need to do the same thing once more — with emphasis — this November in order for it to count. Unfortunately, as noted in my column this month, the wording of the judicial retirement age ballot provision that will appear in November will be far less informative concerning its effect than the one that appeared on the ballot yesterday.

“Warrantless Surveillance in Terror Case Raises Constitutional Challenge”: Charlie Savage will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Constitution Check: Do labor unions have a new answer to right-to-work laws?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.