“Beyond Seminole Rock — Or Why What We Think We Know About Administrative Deference May Be Wrong”: Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation about his article titled “Beyond Seminole Rock” posted today at SSRN.

“7th Cir. decides copyright case out of Ill. involving Louis Farrakhan portrait”: Marcia Oddi has this post at “The Indiana Law Blog” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

“Seventh Circuit: Walgreens, shareholder settlement little more than $370K payday for lawyers.” Jonathan Bilyk of the Cook County Record has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote the majority opinion. A U.S. District Judge sitting by designation disagreed with the decision and will issue a dissent in due course.

“Kimberly Budd confirmed unanimously to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court”: Shira Schoenberg of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts has this report.

“Ventura says he’ll ask the Supreme Court to hear his defamation case, plus seek a new trial; The former Minnesota governor declared that the legal battle to clear his name has made the past four years ‘hell’ for him and his wife”: Randy Furst of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

“Christie wants U.S. Supreme Court to rule on sports betting”: Dustin Racioppi of The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey has this report.

And Brent Johnson of NJ.com has an article headlined “Christie: N.J. may take sports betting fight to Supreme Court.”

“Ottawa stripped Atlantic Canada of inclusion on Supreme Court with barely a peep; Justin Trudeau’s approach to Canada’s top court shows the problem with putting all our chips on red”: Peter Cowan of CBC News has this news analysis.

“Hudson and MacDonald move on to general election in race for state Supreme Court seat”: Greta Kaul of MinnPost has an article that begins, “Apparently, voters got the message that there was a Minnesota Supreme Court race on the primary election ballot Tuesday.”

“Ted Strickland steps into controversy by cheering the timing of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death”: Henry J. Gomez of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

Eliza Collins of USA Today reports that “Ohio Senate candidate sorry for saying Scalia’s death came ‘at a good time.’”

And CNN.com reports that “Ted Strickland apologizes for comments on Scalia’s death.”

“Fill Supreme Court vacancy: Give Judge Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote.” USA Today has published this editorial.

“Group linked to Carr brothers’ victims pushes to oust Kansas Supreme Court justices; Kansans for Justice launch non-retention campaign”: Jonathan Shorman of The Topeka Capital-Journal has an article that begins, “A group with ties to victims of the Carr brothers kicked off a push Wednesday to oust several Kansas Supreme Court justices, who they fault for overturning the death sentences of the two men before the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision.”

“‘Sister Wives’ planning polygamy petition to U.S. Supreme Court”: Ben Winslow of Salt Lake City’s Fox 13 News has this report.

“The Supreme Court sends mixed signal on Hurst ruling’s meaning”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“‘Second Amendment People’ Solutions: Trump’s Clinton ‘joke’ was no coincidence; The GOP espouses a right to bear arms whose logical conclusion is political assassination.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“[Pa.] Superior Court Should Lift Ban on Citing Its Unpublished Opinions”: Yesterday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, contained this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column.

“Honda: Crashworthiness Jury Instructions Fail in Wake of ‘Tincher.'” Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on the case I argued yesterday on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees before a three-judge panel of the Pa. Superior Court.

You can access online Honda’s Brief for Appellant, the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Honda’s Reply Brief for Appellant, an amicus brief filed in support of Honda, and an amicus brief filed in support of plaintiffs-appellees.

As The Legal Intelligencer’s article explains, earlier this year a unanimous three-judge Pa. Superior Court panel issued an unpublished opinion in Cancelleri v. Ford Motor Co. that rejected many of the very same arguments that Honda is making in its current appeal. As previously noted here, I also served as appellate counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees in Cancelleri.

Pa. Superior Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus, in her opinion for the unanimous panel in Cancelleri, explained that “in crashworthiness cases, the jury is required to determine whether the vehicle was defective in design as well as whether an alternative, safer, and practicable design existed at the time of design that could have been used instead,” thereby complying with the Pa. Supreme Court‘s decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., which issued after jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs had issued in both Cancelleri and Martinez.

The Pa. Superior Court’s opinion in Cancelleri also held that Tincher did not mandate the admission of industry or governmental standards evidence at the defendant’s behest. In June 2016, in an unpublished opinion issued in Webb v. Volvo Cars, a separate three-judge Pa. Superior Court panel reached the same result, holding (in an opinion for the panel written by Pa. Superior Court Judge Victor P. Stabile) that Tincher did not mandate the admission of industry or governmental standards evidence.

Perhaps also worth noting, earlier this year the trial court in Tincher itself denied defendant Omega Flex’s renewed motion for post-trial relief on remand from the Pa. Supreme Court, holding that the the Pa. Supreme Court’s ruling did not require a retrial of the case.

“Petition for rehearing en banc filed in the 9th Circuit’s recent CFAA case, Facebook v. Vachani”: Orin Kerr has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The DC Circuit Should Invalidate The Net Worth Sweep Of Fannie/Freddie Assets; A motley collection of procedural objections should not block a long overdue decision”: Law professor Richard Epstein has this post at Forbes.com.

“Trump’s ‘Second Amendment’ Line Is Protected. Barely.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“The Limited Role of Common Sense in the Obviousness Analysis”: Dennis Crouch has this post at “Patently-O” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“McAllen student who sued over Mexican pledge and flag loses lawsuit”: The San Antonio Express-News had this report back in January 2015.

And in other earlier coverage, The Monitor of McAllen, Texas reported in January 2015 that “Mexican pledge suit against McAllen ISD dismissed.”

Yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this decision affirming the judgment in defendants’ favor.

“The University of Chicago Law Review Online Symposium: Presidential Politics and the 113th Justice.” You can access the contents via this link.

“11 lawyers apply to fill 2 seats on Arizona’s expanded Supreme Court”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has an article that begins, “Eleven lawyers have applied to be one of the two new justices that Gov. Doug Ducey will select for the expanded Arizona Supreme Court.”

“Judge: Glenn Beck must identify sources on Boston Marathon bombing.” Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post.

“We’re beginning to think we have an inkling of Sisyphus’s fate.” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch released yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit representing that Court’s “seventh opinion in the Ute line and still addressing the same arguments we have addressed so many times before.”

In Bashman news from Australia: Yahoo!7 News and the Australian Associated Press combine to report that “Two thugs bash man unconscious waiting for Melbourne tram.”

“Suit: Politics, porn scandal behind changes in Pa. ballot question.” In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Maria Panaritis has an article that begins, “A court filing Tuesday suggested that political motives and concerns over a Supreme Court pornography scandal were behind efforts to alter the wording of a judicial retirement-age ballot question to extend the tenure of Pennsylvania judges to age 75.”

And last Thursday, The Philadelphia Daily News published an editorial titled “Plan to change retirement age for judges seems shady.”

You can access the documents filed in the case, including the Brief for Appellants filed yesterday, via this link.