“Gavin Grimm’s Transgender-Rights Case and the Problem with Informal Executive Action”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Katherine Magbanua pleads not guilty in Markel killing”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“U.S. courts look ahead to Trump as Obama cases fizzle”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Brexit case sees starkly different views of UK constitution”: Jill Lawless of The Associated Press has this report.

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538: At this link.

“Supreme Court rules for Samsung in smartphone fight with Apple”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules for prosecutors in insider trading case.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules against State Farm in hurricane fraud case.”

“7th Circuit rules student-athletes aren’t considered ’employees'”: Olivia Covington of The Indiana Lawyer has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Appeals court to examine ex-CIA officer’s leak conviction”: The Associated Press has this report on a case being orally argued today at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued three rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Salman v. United States, No. 15-628. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States, ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court sides with Samsung in patent dispute with Apple“; “Supreme Court upholds broad power to curb insider trading“; and “Justices uphold Katrina fraud verdict against State Farm.”

“A College Newspaper Takes the Right Stand”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Justices Wrestle With Role of Race in Redistricting”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “High court hears arguments in two redistricting cases.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears in favor of ruling against racial gerrymandering in GOP-controlled states.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Race, politics divide Supreme Court justices in redistricting cases.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Two Cases Probing the Use of Race When Creating Voting Districts; Allegations that legislatures in Virginia and North Carolina illegally concentrated blacks in some voting districts.”

Anna Douglas of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has an article headlined “Supreme Court on NC gerrymandering: ‘Is it politics or is it race?.’”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Kennedy vote seems key to Supreme Court redistricting cases.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Grapples With Racial Gerrymandering Cases.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court tackles racial gerrymander cases.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Wants To Know How Much Race And Politics Can Mix In Gerrymandering; The justices will have a hard time drawing a line that makes everyone happy.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Considers Race, Politics And Redistricting In 2 Cases.”

“Trump could bring a different kind of diversity to the Supreme Court”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report, along with an article headlined “CNN’s Donald Trump Supreme Court nominee shortlist.”

“Terrorism Conviction of a Wiretapped American Is Upheld on Appeal”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here and here.

“Federal appeals court upholds Mohamed Mohamud conviction”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court affirms conviction in Oregon car-bomb plot.”

Cyrus Farivar if Ars Technica has a report headlined “Court: Secret spying of would-be Christmas tree bomber was OK; ACLU slams ruling, says this surveillance violates the constitution.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “9th Circuit upholds warrantless email surveillance of person in the U.S. communicating with foreigners abroad when the foreigners are the ‘targets.’”

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Britain’s Supreme Court Hears Legal Challenge to ‘Brexit'”: Stephen Castle will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Conviction of serial child molester at center of federal appeals case to set him free”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this article previewing a case scheduled for oral argument on Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

“Florida my be pondering ‘novel’ lethal injection change”: Dara Kam of The News Service of Florida has an article that begins, “In a move that would be certain to spur more litigation over the state’s already embattled death penalty, Florida corrections officials appear to be planning what could be a dramatic change to the triple-drug lethal injection process — including the use of a drug never before used for executions.”

“Supreme Court struggles with pair of race and redistricting cases”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post. According to Gerstein’s post, “Justice Sonia Sotomayor is normally vocal in such cases, but she appeared to be suffering from a cold and laryngitis Monday, and took a lower profile role.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court weighs race challenges to legislative districts.”

“Prominent class action firm sues ‘professional objectors’ for racketeering”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.

“OT2016 #7: ‘Do We Even Really Know the Name?'” You can access the newly posted seventh episode of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel, Dan Epps, and two special guests, via this link.

In today’s mail: I received an advance reader’s copy of the book “The Campus Rape Panic: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities,” by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. The book’s scheduled on-sale date is January 24, 2017.

Eleventh Circuit “tentatively approve[s] posting oral argument recordings on its website” beginning in approximately sixth months: As first noted in a tweet today from the Free Law Project, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit have “tentatively approved posting oral argument recordings on its website.”

On May 26, 2016, Michael Lissner, executive director of Free Law Project, sent this letter to the Eleventh Circuit’s chief judge.

Following electronic discussions back and forth with that court’s staff, today Lissner received an email from David J. Smith, the Eleventh Circuit’s Clerk of Court, stating:

Mr. Lissner,

The Court has directed me to inform you that it has tentatively approved posting oral argument recordings on its website. However, appropriate revisions to the Court’s rules will first have to go through the rulemaking process, which is anticipated to take approximately six months. In the interim, any request you make for oral argument recordings in specific cases will be considered by the Court on a case-by-case basis.

Once the Eleventh Circuit begins posting audio of its oral arguments online, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit will have the “distinction” of being the only federal appellate court that fails to do so.

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in McCrory v. Harris, No. 15-1262: At this link.

“The Big (Imaginary) Black Friday Bombing: How the case of conflicted teenager Mohamed Mohamud — convinced by the FBI he was bombing a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon — could determine whether the American government is allowed to spy wholesale on its citizens.” Nicolas Medina Mora and Mike Hayes of BuzzFeed News had this report back in November 2015.

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, written by Circuit Judge John B. Owens, affirming the criminal conviction of Mohamed Osman Mohamud for attempting to detonate a large bomb during the annual Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland, Oregon.

In news coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s oral argument of the case, Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian reported that “Warrantless surveillance in Portland holiday tree-lighting bomb plot challenged in court.”

Ian Duncan of The Baltimore Sun reported that “Appeals court hears challenge to use of NSA data in criminal cases.”

And Maria L La Ganga of The Guardian (UK) reported that “Attorneys debate use of warrantless surveillance in Portland bomb appeal; Mohamed Osman Mohamud case is first court review of a conviction based on law underpinning spy programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.”

Earlier, Jacob Axelrad of The Christian Science Monitor had an article headlined “Portland Christmas tree bomber gets 30 years as questions about arrest linger; The case of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who attempted to detonate a fake bomb at a Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony four years ago, comes as domestic terrorism appears to be shifting; The sort of FBI sting that snared him, however, will continue.”

“U.S. court puts Obamacare case on hold until Trump takes office”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court on Monday agreed to put on hold until after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January the Obama administration’s appeal of a judge’s ruling favoring a Republican challenge to a key part of the Obamacare law.”

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, No. 15-680: At this link.

In early news coverage, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court seems concerned over race in redistricting.”

In the December 12, 2016 issue of The New Yorker: In the Talk of the Town section, Jeffrey Toobin has a Comment titled “The Real Voting Scandal of 2016: Jill Stein can’t call for the recount of uncast votes, but there were clearly thousands of them as a result of voter-suppression measures.”

Larissa MacFarquhar has an article headlined “The Ex-Con Scholars of Berkeley: Formerly incarcerated undergrads started a group on campus to offer mentoring, support, and advocacy to other former inmates.”

And Louis Menand has an A Critic at Large essay titled “Banned Books and Blockbusters: How the publishing industry took on the taboo” that begins, “Contrary to what, Googling around, you might assume, obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.”

“Georgia’s Dangerous Rush to Execution”: Norman S. Fletcher, formerly a Justice and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Trump’s Threat to the Constitution”: Evan McMullin has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Court Set to Overturn Texas Death Penalty Cases”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Trump has broad power to implement immigration policies: legal experts.” Mica Rosenberg and Julia Edwards Ainsley of Reuters have an article that begins, “President-elect Donald Trump will be able to make many of his promised changes in immigration policy unilaterally by exercising the same kind of executive powers he criticized President Barack Obama for using.”

“Democrats to give Trump Cabinet picks the Garland treatment; Delay tactics could sap momentum from the president’s first 100 days; ‘What goes around comes around,’ one lawmaker says”: Burgess Everett and Elana Schor of Politico.com have this report.

“Britain’s Supreme Court head says Brexit case about law, not wider politics”: Michael Holden and Estelle Shirbon of Reuters have this report.

And Jill Lawless of The Associated Press reports that “UK Supreme Court hears landmark challenge to Brexit plans.”

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is streaming live video of the oral argument on its web site via this link. And transcripts of the oral argument, updated twice daily, can be accessed via this link.

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

“Questions Of Race And Redistricting Return To The Supreme Court”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court takes up cases about race in redistricting.”

And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “Will the Supreme Court Limit Gerrymandering? The High Court will hear two cases related to a crucial issue — -how states draw their legislative districts.”