“Menendez asks Supreme Court to hear case; The Democratic senator facing bribery charges claims probe violated Constitution’s ‘speech or debate’ immunity for legislators”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

You can view the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“10th Circuit sides with city in ABQ Rapid Transit case”: Dan McKay of The Albuquerque Journal has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.

View the video of this afternoon’s Ninth Circuit oral argument in Robins v. Spokeo, Inc. on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted the video on YouTube at this link.

“Federal appeals court upholds Va. voter ID law”: Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post report that “Appeals court upholds Virginia’s voter-ID law.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Federal appeals court upholds Virginia voter ID law.”

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

“Legal scholars to Trump: Abide by Constitution”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Ohio governor OKs 20-week abortion ban, nixes heartbeat bill”: Julie Carr Smyth of The Associated Press has an article that begins, “Republican Gov. John Kasich signed a bill Tuesday imposing a 20-week abortion ban while vetoing stricter provisions in a separate measure that would have barred the procedure at the first detectable fetal heartbeat.”

“OT2016 #8: ‘Don’t Think It’s Going To Be 9-0.'” Ian Samuel and Dan Epps have posted online this special bonus episode of their “First Mondays” podcast. I’m calling it a “bonus episode” because it’s the first time that a new episode has appeared on a Tuesday rather than a Monday.

“Supreme Court justice argues for a world view from the bench”: Max B. Baker has this article in today’s edition of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

“A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States”: Law professor Daniel Martin Katz, Michael J Bommarito II, and law professor Josh Blackman have posted this paper online.

“The Supreme Court Case That Could Bankrupt Religious Schools and Hospitals: Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton pits financially strained organizations against their own workers, who fear their promised pensions may not be there when they retire.” Emma Green of The Atlantic has this report.

“How the Supreme Court can avoid turning the Web into a Wild West”: Online at The Toronto Globe and Mail, law professor Michael Geist has an essay that begins, “Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in a case that strikes at the heart of law in the online world.”

In news coverage of the oral argument, Ashifa Kassam of The Guardian (UK) reported that “Activists back Google’s appeal against Canadian order to censor search results; Canadian supreme court decision to ban links of fake company worldwide could allow countries to regulate internet outside borders, civil liberty groups say.”

And Nicole Ireland and Matthew Braga of CBC News reported that “Google brings internet free-speech battle to Supreme Court; Search engine says ruling could pave way for countries to use their courts to block content worldwide.”

The Supreme Court of Canada has posted online this summary of the case and also provides online access to the oral argument video.

“Will special session skew NC Supreme Court? Lawmakers remain vague.” In today’s edition of The Winston-Salem Journal, Richard Craver has a front page article that begins, “North Carolina voters could learn today what the Republican-controlled General Assembly will do during its special session this week, including whether lawmakers will go through with a controversial proposal to add justices to the N.C. Supreme Court.”

“NC Supreme Court justice call-back rule rescinded”: Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has an article that begins, “The rule that would have allowed the N.C. Supreme Court’s chief justice to call back retired justices to serve on a case-by-case basis to avoid potential deadlocks has been rescinded.”

“Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts; Lawyer: State Supreme Court program unconstitutional.” Lynnette Hintze of The Daily Inter Lake of Kalispell, Montana has an article that begins, “A Kalispell lawyer wants the Montana Legislature to take action to stop a state Supreme Court program he claims is unconstitutional because it taxes the clients of lawyers and spends the money on preferred nonprofit groups.”

“An outstanding choice for U.S. Supreme Court vacancy”: Law professor Derek T. Muller has this essay online at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“Supreme Court would toss Ohio abortion bans, analysts say”: Jack Torry of The Columbus Dispatch has this report.

And Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Physicians, Right to Life ask Kasich to veto Heartbeat Bill.”

“N.J. judge orders newspaper to stop publishing articles”: In today’s edition of The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey, Salvador Rizzo has a front page article that begins, “A New Jersey judge has ordered the Trentonian newspaper to stop publishing articles about a child abuse case — a ruling that First Amendment experts said could violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s most important decisions guaranteeing the freedom of the press.”

And yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh had a post titled “N.J. newspaper ordered not to publish complaint in heroin/crack-to-school child custody case.”

“Supreme Court upholds L.A. man’s bank fraud charge for siphoning money from a customer’s account”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Court tosses suit on Pa. judge-retirement referendum”: In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Angela Couloumbis has an article that begins, “A federal judge has dismissed a hard-fought lawsuit that sought to declare unconstitutional a November ballot question asking voters whether they approved of raising the retirement age for Pennsylvania judges by five years.”

I have posted at this link last Friday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.