“9th Circ. Reinstates Order for Wiccan Prisoner”: Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Seventh Circuit: Gilbert’s senior status on federal bench allows service on court and as SIU trustee.” The Madison-St. Clair County Record has this report.

For those who just can’t wait until June 27, 2016 to see the Sixth Circuit’s new web site: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has made available a preview of its new web site at this link.

New Fifth Circuit three-judge panel opinion featuring “informal en banc” determination: Yesterday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this decision. The initial footnote of both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion reveal that the en banc Fifth Circuit voted on an issue that the appeal presents.

Law review articles discussing the “informal en banc” procedures of the federal appellate courts can be accessed here and here.

Fourth Circuit rejects constitutional challenge to the bar admissions rules of the Maryland federal district court brought by out-of-state attorneys: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Third Circuit revisits Lehman Brothers in another must-read sanctions opinion”: Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“Ex-Gov. Rowland Loses Latest Appeal: Moves Closer To 2 1/2-Year Prison Sentence.” Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Connecticut ex-Governor Rowland’s conviction upheld on appeal.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court upholds conviction of ex-Connecticut governor.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Puhl, federal appeals court nominee from ND, slated for Senate hearing”: Patrick Springer of The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota has this report.

“The Unintended Consequences of the Stanford Rape-Case Recall”: Online at The New Yorker, law professor Jeannie Suk has a post that begins, “When the Supreme Court refused to overturn Roe v. Wade, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992, a plurality of the Justices famously explained that doing otherwise would look like surrender to the intense political protests directed at the Court.”