“Internet Giants Warn of Mass User Terminations If Recent Appellate Ruling Left Untouched; A 2nd Circuit rehearing is demanded in the MP3Tunes case”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“A turning point for transgender rights?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“State Supreme Court hears case of florist who refused gay couple”: Lynn Thompson of The Seattle Times has this report.

Kristin M. Kraemer of The Tri-City Herald of Kennewick, Washington reports that “State Supreme Court hears arguments in Arlene’s Flowers case.”

And Bradford Richardson of The Washington Times reports that “Christian florist, 71, takes appeal to Washington Supreme Court in gay marriage case.”

“UK’s Supreme Court faces Brexit limelight”: Andrew Hosken of BBC News has this report.

And Anushka Asthana and Rowena Mason of The Guardian (UK) report that “Supreme court judge hints at legal hitch that could seriously delay Brexit; Lady Hale raises possibility of PM having to replace 1972 act before triggering article 50, incurring wrath of anti-EU Tories.”

“Who Donald Trump should appoint to the Supreme Court”: Brett J. Talley has this essay today at CNN.com.

“Pa. Supreme Court’s jail conversation ruling negates rape case recordings”: Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this report.

“Supreme Court ruling to cost public-safety pension trust $220M in refunds to members; The divided court upheld a Maricopa County Superior Court ruling that found a 2011 pension-reform law unconstitutional’: Craig Harris has this front page article in today’s edition of The Arizona Republic.

“The president-elect and the Supreme Court: Donald Trump says the law is settled on gay marriage but not on abortion.” Steven Mazie has this post today at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Barbra Streisand urges Obama to bypass Senate, appoint Supreme Court justice unilaterally”: Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times has this report.

“Trump’s Election Raises Host Of Issues For Supreme Court”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Trump-Era Supreme Court a Threat to Public Sector Unions?” Kevin McGowan of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

Seventh Circuit declines Wisconsin school district’s request for immediate appeal in transgender student’s restroom access case: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

This matter is procedurally interesting because the district court initially certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal by permission, but then vacated that order before the Seventh Circuit had decided whether to accept the appeal. Under these circumstances, the Seventh Circuit held yesterday that it lacked jurisdiction to allow the appeal to proceed.

Federal Circuit revives trademark dispute between an Illinois church and Adidas: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

“Legal scholarship highlight: The Amicus Machine.” Law professors Allison Orr Larsen and Neal Devins have this guest post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“When the inaugural parade passes the Trump hotel, will protesters be there, too?” Ann E. Marimow has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post reporting on an oral argument (78.5 MB mp3 audio file) that occurred yesterday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg utters the words: ‘President Trump.'” Robert Barnes has this blog entry at the “PowerPost” blog of The Washington Post.

“Merrick Garland: What happens now?” Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

The article’s first paragraph suggests that D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland won’t be returning to the task of judging cases in that court until January 2017. (My earlier uninformed musings on this topic can be accessed here). If that’s true, then here’s hoping he has plenty of credit card points and miles and hotel points saved up so that he can take some long overdue journeys to exotic locations over the next two months that there never was quite enough time to embark on given the daily grind. Maybe he will emerge back on the bench in January looking something like David Letterman in India (see the full video here).

“The Republican blueprint for Supreme Court nominations”: Joan Biskupic of CNN.com has this report.

“Will the Third Circuit start posting oral-argument video? Highlights from the Third Circuit’s Judges and Journalists program.” Matthew Stiegler has this very interesting post — in which “How Appealing” is mentioned — at his “CA3blog.”

Inside baseball — Third Circuit eliminates Option B for Appendix-filing: Without any fanfare and, to my knowledge, without any advance notice, on Wednesday of last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order eliminating Option B for filing the Appendix on appeal.

The immediate reaction of the vast majority of this blog’s readers is certain to be “Oh no, not Option B!” followed shortly thereafter by “What the heck is Option B anyhow?” The details of Option B can be found in this order that the Third Circuit issued on March 17, 2009. Among other things, Option B allowed one to exceed the word limits ordinarily applicable to principal briefs by 75 words (and presumably by 37.5 words in a reply brief).

In the six and a half-plus years that Option B has been in existence for Appendix-filing in the Third Circuit, I have used it, and have seen it used by opposing parties in appeals on which I am working, only on rare occasions. Chances are few readers of this blog will miss Option B, but if you are one of those who will, at least now you know it’s history.

“The Highest Court”: In the November 21, 2016 issue of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has this seven-paragraph essay, part of a larger collection titled “Aftermath: Sixteen Writers on Trump’s America.”

“Confirm Merrick Garland, and end the partisan pettiness over the Supreme Court”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“An Alternate Take on Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees”: Adam Feldman has this very interesting post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.