“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.

“‘He was living history’: Champion of equality Judge Myron Bright dies at 97.” Helmut Schmidt of The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota has this report.

“Cherokee Attorney General rules gay marriage bans unconstitutional”: Reuters has this report.

The Associated Press has an article headlined “Cherokee Nation attorney general: Tribe must OK gay marriage.”

And Hayley Miller of The Huffington Post reports that “Cherokee Nation Will Now Recognize Same-Sex Marriage.”

“Can oral argument in Spokeo remand make sense of inscrutable SCOTUS ruling?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight today has a post that begins, “On Tuesday, Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown and William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy Park will appear in San Francisco before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to argue a familiar question: Does Spokeo’s alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act give plaintiff Thomas Robins standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution?”

I will link to the video of the oral argument once it becomes available online.

Talk about a harangue and oration: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today heard oral argument in the federal government’s appeal from a district court’s dismissal as vague of certain charges against a U.S. Supreme Court protester. The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Sri Srinivasan and Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams.

You can access the audio of the oral argument via this link (43.3 MB mp3 audio file).

In other coverage, Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Federal Prosecutors Want Broad Authority To Go After Supreme Court Protesters.”

“The Pervert Who Changed America: How Larry Flynt Fought the Law and Won.” Drew Millard has this report at Vice.com.

“High Court Sidesteps Fight on Online Sales Tax Rules; Law has ramifications for companies selling directly to consumers online and through other means”: Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rejects trade group’s challenge to Colorado tax.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Internet Sales Tax Clash Turned Away by U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court ends fight over $1 billion NFL concussion deal”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “NFL’s Brain-Damage Deal Survives as Top Court Spurns Appeals.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court leaves $1B NFL concussion settlement in place.”

“Once Again, Justice Breyer Presses Case Against Death Penalty”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Mark Berman of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court passes on death penalty cases in Ohio and Florida.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Does the death penalty serve a purpose? Supreme Court hasn’t decided either.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Liberal U.S. justice questions death penalty as court spurns cases.”

And Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Suffering On Death Row For 40 Years May Be Cruel And Unusual, Justice Breyer Says; The 78-year-old justice won’t give up his quest for a case that might one day abolish the death penalty.”

“Comparing Candidates for the Next United States Solicitor General”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

Access today’s ruling in an argued case of the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued the opinion for a unanimous Court in Shaw v. United States, No. 15-5991. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Update: In news coverage, Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court upholds broad reach of bank fraud law.”

“Scalia as Procrustes for the Majority, Scalia as Cassandra in Dissent”: Law professor Mary Anne Case has posted this paper online at SSRN.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

In Sireci v. Florida, No. 16-5247, Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

In the December 19, 2016 issue of The New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin has an Annals of Law article headlined “Gawker’s Demise and the Trump-Era Threat to the First Amendment: Hulk Hogan’s smashing legal victory shows us that publishing the truth may no longer be enough.”

And Malcolm Gladwell has an A Critic at Large essay titled “Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, and the Modern Whistleblower: From their backgrounds to their motivations, the two men have some striking differences.”

“The Lethal Gaps in How the Supreme Court Handles the Death Penalty”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Ninth Circuit reinstates part of suit brought by two Fresno County growers claiming ‘arbitrary legislative targeting’ in California farm labor deal: On Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision with an opinion to follow.

The Fresno Bee reported on the suit’s initiation in January 2016 in an article headlined “Fresno County growers claim ‘arbitrary legislative targeting’ in late-session bill.”

In July 2016, after the suit was dismissed in the trial court, The Sacramento Bee reported that “Judge tosses Valley growers’ lawsuit against Brown administration.”

The case was orally argued a little under one month ago, and you can view the oral argument video on YouTube via this link.

“Abortion Foes, Emboldened by Trump, Promise ‘Onslaught’ of Tough Restrictions”: Sabrina Tavernise and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times have this report.

Why end your opinion with a “Conclusion” when instead you could have a “Constrilusion”? See, for example, this published opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued on Friday.

Update: As invariably happens once a mistake is noted at “How Appealing,” the typo has been fixed.

“Three Challenges Aim to Give Rights to Fetuses”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

In addition, today Bloomberg View published a revised version of the essay Feldman originally posted on Friday, bearing the revised title “Judge on Trump’s Short List Rules for Middle Schoolers.”

Kevin Simpson of The Denver Post is reporting: In today’s newspaper, he has articles headlined “Allison Eid, possible Trump court pick, could fit mold of mentor Clarence Thomas“; “Neil Gorsuch: Elite credentials, conservative western roots land Denver native on SCOTUS list; Appeals court judge has key conservative bonafides“; “Tim Tymkovich: Coloradan through and through would give SCOTUS missing perspective; Temperment and collegiality augment requisite conservative leanings.”