“EEOC Loses Racial Discrimination Suit Over Dreadlocks Ban”: Allissa Wickham of Law360.com had this report (subscription required for full access) back in March 2014.

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision affirming the judgment in that case.

“Stevens’ light still shines brightly”: David Thomas and Emily Donovan of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin have an article that begins, “Decades before he would be nominated by President Gerald Ford to the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens was a 12-year-old kid watching the Chicago Cubs play in the 1932 World Series.”

“Judge rules for unsealing 1942 grand jury testimony after Reporters Committee, historians bid for openness”: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press issued this news release in June 2015.

Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court’s order unsealing the testimony.

“U.S. Appeals Court Rules Mental-Health Ban on Gun Ownership May Violate Rights; Judges have been struggling to define boundaries of the Second Amendment”: Joe Palazzolo has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Gun Ban Struck Down for Involuntarily Committed.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Man who was involuntarily committed 30 years ago might regain Second Amendment rights.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link. Sixteen judges of the Sixth Circuit took part in the en banc ruling, and, if my count is correct, eight of them issued opinions in the case today.

As Lyle Denniston noted in a post from December 2014 titled “Appeals court: Gun control must meet toughest test” published at “SCOTUSblog,” the original three-judge panel’s opinion in the case applied strict scrutiny to invalidate the challenged ban. A majority of the judges participating in today’s en banc Sixth Circuit ruling instead have chosen to apply intermediate scrutiny in evaluating the ban.

“Donald Trump Wants Peter Thiel On The Supreme Court, Sources Say; The eccentric billionaire endorsed Trump in a speech at the Republican National Convention this summer”: Ben Walsh and Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post have this report.

“Clinton Says She May Not Choose Garland for Supreme Court”: Mike Dorning and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Changing Work Patterns in the Supreme Court”: Adam Feldman has this post today at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“A Take on Domnarski’s Posner Bio”: Paul Horwitz recently had this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Joan Biskupic on reporting about the U.S. Supreme Court”: You can access at this link the latest installment of the UCI Law Talks podcast.

“This Loophole Ends the Privacy of Social Security Numbers”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Reflections on the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause as Illuminated by the Cruz Candidacy”: Law professor Laurence H. Tribe has this article online at the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

“The Murder Of Dan Markel: Tensions Between Police And Prosecutors.” David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

The New Mexico Bar Association’s 27th Annual Appellate Practice Institute takes place tomorrow in Albuquerque: The reduced volume of blogging here this week, which will continue through Saturday evening, can be attributed to the wonderful time I have been having traveling through northern New Mexico this week. The scenery and Native American history that I have observed (the preceding two links just being an example of each category) have been outstanding.

My visit to New Mexico will conclude with a presentation I will be delivering tomorrow at the event mentioned in the title of this post. You can access the agenda’s event at this link.

As always when I am traveling, additional appellate related retweets are likely to appear at this blog’s Twitter feed.

“Judge sharply questions defense of Indiana’s Syrian refugee ban: ‘Oh, honestly. You are so out of it.'” Stephanie Wang of The Indianapolis Star has this report.

Matt Ford of The Atlantic has a report headlined “‘Are Syrians the Only Muslims Indiana Fears?’; A three-judge panel proves skeptical of Indiana’s efforts to turn away Syrian refugees.”

Dave Stafford of The Indiana Lawyer reports that “Judges blister Pence’s position, solicitor general in Syrian refugee case.”

Patricia Manson of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports that “Bid to block Syrian refugees hits a wall.”

And Jack Bouboushian of Courthouse News Service reports that “Indiana Ban on Syrian Refugees Draws Mockery From 7th Circuit.”

You can access the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit via this link (18.6 MB mp3 audio file).

“A Conversation with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan”: The George Washington University Law School hosted this event on Tuesday, and you can view the video at this link.

If you were hoping to see Justice Kagan in Louisville today, however, you were out of luck, because as Matthew Glowicki of The Louisville Courier-Journal reports, “Justice Kagan U of L visit to be rescheduled.”