“Inferences From Amicus Briefs and How Justice Kennedy Continues to Rule Supreme”: Adam Feldman has this post today at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“School board appeals to U.S. Supreme Court to halt order allowing transgender student to use boys’ bathroom”: Moriah Balingit of The Washington Post has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “School board takes transgender bathroom case to high court.”

“Courts Blur Line Between Violent Speech and Crime”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Donald Trump Calls On Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Resign”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Lying to Get You Drunk Isn’t the Same as Fraud”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“The public feud of Ginsburg vs. Trump casts harsh spotlight on court’s liberal lion”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Justice Ginsburg doesn’t let up on Trump, who fires back.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman have an article headlined “Donald Trump Calls Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Remarks a ‘Disgrace to the Court.'”

Brent Kendall and Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal have an article headlined “Ginsburg’s Trump Comments Draw Criticism; The Supreme Court justice, in unusual remarks, suggests Trump would be bad for the court, the nation.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Eliza Collins of USA Today reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg faces criticism over Trump attacks.”

Lawrence Hurley and John Whitesides of Reuters report that “Trump calls on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg to resign after criticism.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Calls for Ginsburg to Resign From Supreme Court After ‘Faker’ Jab.”

The Associated Press reports that “Ginsburg’s public Trump critique raises ethical quandaries.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has an article headlined “Would Ruth Bader Ginsburg have to recuse herself if Donald Trump wins?” And Manu Raju and Theodore Schleifer of CNN.com report that “Top Republicans criticize Ruth Bader Ginsburg but don’t back Trump’s call for her to resign.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial titled “Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” The newspaper has also posted online a “Room for Debate” discussion titled “Can a Supreme Court Justice Denounce a Candidate?”

Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial titled “Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on Donald Trump.” In addition, columnist Richard Cohen has an essay titled “Justice Ginsburg’s remarks are a symptom of how low Trump has driven our discourse.”

Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “It’s Fine for Supreme Court Justices to Speak Their Minds.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “Deciphering Justice: The subtext of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s improper attacks on Donald Trump.” In addition, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “RBG Just Risked Her Legacy to Insult Trump: Why she did it.”

Online at Reuters, law professor Richard L. Hasen has an essay titled “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s slam of Trump does the nation no favors.”

At the Daily Intelligencer blog of New York magazine, Jonathan Chait has a post titled “Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Disintegration of Political Norms.”

At The Huffington Post, law professor Douglas W. Kmiec has a blog entry titled “Judging Trump — Was Justice Ginsburg Right To Criticize Donald Trump?”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: Do Supreme Court Justices have a right to comment on politics?”

Programming note: From early morning to mid-afternoon on Wednesday east coast time, I will be traveling to Irvine, California, where on Thursday I will be a panelist at the UC Irvine School of Law‘s “6th Annual Supreme Court Term in Review.”

The panel will be live-streamed, online via this link on Thursday beginning at 3 p.m. eastern time, noon pacific time.

Additional blog posts will appear here later tomorrow. As always, while I am traveling, “How Appealing” readers are invited to follow this blog’s Twitter feed, where appellate related retweets may appear more frequently.

“Thin.” Chances are you won’t find a judicial opinion containing a shorter sentence than the one that’s the title to this post, from a concurring opinion that Eleventh Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum issued today. The rest of the concurring opinion, while not as pithy, is also well worth a read. Judge Rosenbaum was included in the recently published “list of my personal 13 favorite federal appellate judge writers.”

“[W]e hold that a document filed by a pro se litigant as an extension of time to request a certificate of appealability qualifies as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3”: So holds the majority on a divided three-judge panel in an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court to consider report on Rio Grande case”: The Associated Press has an article that begins, “The nation’s highest court will likely have to settle a dispute between Texas and New Mexico over management of water from the Rio Grande.”

“9th Circuit: It’s a federal crime to visit a website after being told not to visit it.” Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Justice Kennedy talks internet, ‘Hamilton,’ Scalia at conference in Big Sky”: Whitney Bermes of The Bozeman (Mont.) Daily Chronicle has this report.

“Planned Parenthood wins preliminary injunction in lawsuit against Herbert”: Daphne Chen of The Deseret News has this report.

Benjamin Wood of The Salt Lake Tribune has an article headlined “‘As far as we are concerned, the lawsuit is over’: Utah Planned Parenthood says court’s ruling on injunction gives group a win over guv.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court orders Utah to fund Planned Parenthood branch.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court orders Utah to fund Planned Parenthood branch.”

You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.

“Charles Ogletree, Harvard law professor, says he has Alzheimer’s”: Jeremy C. Fox of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Startup that we all forgot gets small win against Facebook on appeal; In Facebook v. Power Ventures, 9th Circuit finds defendant not liable under anti-spam law”: Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Donald Trump Rebukes Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Deriding His Candidacy”: Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has this report.

“Research: Black Judges Are Reversed On Appeal More Than White Judges.” This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.” The segment discusses research contained in a paper titled “Is Justice Really Blind? Race and Reversal in US Courts.”

“US judge in hot water over joke about moving to New Zealand”: The New Zealand Herald has this report.

Federal Circuit overturns $172,465.75 award against federal government under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act because claimant later had to serve time anyway for other offenses: You can access today’s per curiam ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts previously provided coverage of this claimant’s involvement with the federal criminal justice system in articles headlined “Conviction overturned for Michael Crooker of Agawam, accused of being felon in possession of firearm” and “Michael Crooker of Agawam agrees to serve 15 years for possession of ricin and threatening prosecutor.”

You can access at this link the ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that had awarded compensation to the claimant.

Are plasma-donation centers “service establishments” for purposes of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act? The majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit answered “yes” in an opinion issued today. The majority’s 14-page opinion inspired a 21-page dissent.

“Appeals court hears case over kosher food in Florida prisons”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Trump: ‘He is a faker,’ should share tax returns.” Joan Biskupic of CNN.com has this report.

“Mississippi Governor Asks Appeals Court To Allow Enforcement Of Anti-LGBT Law During Appeal; Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant is fighting to defend HB 1523, a religious exemption law passed earlier this year; A federal judge halted enforcement of the law on June 30”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“In her remarks on the presumptive GOP nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have trumped her usual outspokenness”: Aaron Blake and Robert Barnes have this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

And at WaPo’s “The Fix” blog, Aaron Blake has a post titled “In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line.”

“The US Supreme Court uses email after all — or at least two justices do”: Jason Leopold of Vice News has this report today.

“SCOTUS Briefs: Opinions’ Basic Building Blocks.” Adam Feldman has this post today at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Appeals court throws out Miami Beach ‘bar-girl’ convictions”: Jay Weaver has this report on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar (E.D. Ky.) — sitting by designation — wrote the opinion, which makes for quite the entertaining read.

“Confirm Judge Koh to the 9th Circuit”: The San Francisco Chronicle has published this editorial.

“Both sides dealt setback in tour guide free-speech lawsuit”: The Associated Press has this report from Charleston, South Carolina.

That happy feeling that follows when you suggest a correction to the Term-end “SCOTUSblog” 2016 stat pack that’s fixed promptly thereafter: Followed by that sad feeling when you realize that a question about the stat pack which accompanied your suggested correction remains unresponded to.

“Limiting Pay for Play in College Sports”: Online today at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay that begins, “The odds have gone up that the Supreme Court will consider whether rules governing amateur participation in U.S. college sports violate antitrust law.”

“Practically Speaking, The Death Penalty Is Disappearing In The United States; Although nearly 3,000 people are on death row in America, there has not been an execution in the country for two months — and few executions are expected in the coming months”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report today.

“First Circuit finds sentence enhanced based on a song (and thrice longer than guideline range) substantively unreasonable”: Douglas A. Berman has this post today at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog.

“The Senate risks Election Day chaos: Imagine a Trump-Clinton standoff and a 4-4 Supreme Court.” Law professor Burt Neuborne has this essay online today at The New York Daily News.

“Making use of a 4-to-4 split”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.