Programming note: This evening, I will be in Washington, DC watching the Washington Nationals host the Baltimore Orioles, attending the game with a DC-based baseball superfan. As a result, additional posts will appear here on Thursday morning.

In the interim, as usual while I am on the road, additional appellate-related retweets may appear on this blog’s now-verified Twitter feed.

“Victims of attacks in Israel lose U.S. appeal vs Lebanese bank”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“One sitting judge and two aspiring judges from Kentucky wish to exercise their free-speech rights during this and future judicial elections.” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“LA Hotel Minimum-Wage Law Survives 9th Circuit”: Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued late yesterday.

“Residency where marijuana is legal no reason for police search — U.S. court”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Out-of-state license plates don’t justify search.”

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

Judge Gorsuch, merely a dissent away from the appellate judging trifecta: As readers are well aware, the author of this blog has long viewed opinions written by Tenth Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as must-read. In addition, the author of this blog is amused ever so slightly when the same judge who wrote the opinion of the court for an appellate panel also adds a concurring opinion. In such instances, the authoring judge is merely a dissenting opinion away from the seemingly ever elusive appellate judging trifecta. (For those keeping score at home, this blog’s archives reveal that the trifecta has been achieved at least once during in the more than 14-year history of “How Appealing.”)

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision that checked both of those first two boxes. Even better, insofar as some readers are concerned, the opinions deal with the still controversial subject of Chevron deference.

“Kansas is latest state to press for voter restrictions”: John Bacon of USA Today has this report.

Reuters reports that “Kansas asks U.S. appeals court to reinstate strict voter ID rule.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court considers Kansas rule that voters prove citizenship.”

You can access via this link (4.46 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.