“After Mr. Trump’s Din, the Quiet Grandeur of the Courts”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Gorsuch v. Trump”: Eric Posner his this blog post today, along with a blog post titled “Trump versus the judiciary: the battle lines take shape.”

“Crying wolf over Neil Gorsuch”: Professor Dennis J. Hutchinson has this essay online at The Chicago Tribune.

“ISIS Detainees May Be Held at Guantanamo, Document Shows”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Nominee Calls Trump’s Attacks on Judiciary ‘Demoralizing'”: Julie Hirschfeld Davis of The New York Times has this report.

Abby Phillip, Robert Barnes, and Ed O’Keefe of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch says Trump’s attacks on judiciary are ‘demoralizing.’”

Beth Reinhard of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Calls Trump’s Comments on Judiciary ‘Demoralizing’; Comment made in closed-door meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, confirmed by confirmation team.”

And Josh Dawsey and Seung Min Kim of Politico.com report that “Gorsuch calls Trump’s judge attacks ‘demoralizing’ and ‘disheartening’; The Supreme Court nominee breaks with the president who selected him eight days after he was nominated.”

“Supreme Court Nominee Calls Trump’s Judicial Attacks ‘Demoralizing’; ‘Disheartening’ and ‘demoralizing,’ Judge Neil Gorsuch says of President Trump’s comments in recent days”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Liberals should welcome Gorsuch. Like Kagan, he puts law before politics.” Jason Murray has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch calls Trump’s tweets ‘disheartening'”: Ashley Killough of CNN.com has this report.

“Judge Gorsuch’s Misguided Quest to End Judicial Deference to Administrative Agencies”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at Justia’s Verdict.

And at “Dorf on Law,” he has a related blog post titled “Is Chevron Deference Liberal, Conservative, or Neither?”

“Record Audience for Appeals Court’s Hearing on Trump Travel Ban”: Brent Kendall has this post at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

“U.S. Supreme Court puts off action on major class action dispute”: Lawrence Hurley and Robert Iafolla of Reuters have this report.

“The travel ban hearing: an important legal battle in a larger constitutional war; Whichever side loses will almost certainly seek immediate review in the US supreme court — the implications for the US and the world are extraordinary.” Joshua Matz has this essay online at The Guardian (UK).

“What’s at Stake in a Supreme Court Ruling in the Trump Immigration Battle?” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“A Filibuster on a Supreme Court Nomination Is So Rare It’s Only Worked Once”: Elizabeth King of Time magazine has this report.

“A new role: The retired justice.” Judge Glock — who is neither a jurist nor a handgun — has this essay online at The Chicago Tribune.

“Trump calls courts ‘so political’ as travel ban faces scrutiny”: Roberta Rampton of Reuters has this report.

“Trump’s own words a factor on immigration ban’s legal fate?” Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Younger Supreme Court appointees stay on the bench longer, but there are plenty of exceptions”: Kristen Bialik and John Gramlich of Pew Research Center have this report.

“2nd Circ. Revives Actos Antitrust Suit But Limits Scope”: Eric Kroh of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Gorsuch in the Mainstream: He was upheld at the Supreme Court in seven of eight cases.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“‘Justice Scalia’s seat’ has a history going back 150 years”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has this report.

“Chuck Cooper emerges as Trump’s likely choice for solicitor general”: Liz Goodwin of Yahoo News has this report.

“Trump to judges: Even a ‘bad high school student’ would rule in my favor.” Kevin Liptak of CNN.com has this report.

And Jason Wells of BuzzFeed News reports that “Trump Slams Federal Judges For Being ‘Political’ After A Court Hearing On His Travel Ban; Trump said that courts were ‘so political’ after a panel of judges appeared skeptical of the government’s arguments in favor of reinstating his travel ban.”

“Neil Gorsuch: An Eloquent Intellectual.” Law professor (and former Tenth Circuit judge) Michael McConnell has this post at the “Defining Ideas” blog of the Hoover Institution.

“Travel ban: Local attorneys say feds got tough questions from judges, but so did the state.” Nina Shapiro of The Seattle Times has this report.

“Checks? Never Heard of Them. Balances? Forget About It. Donald Trump’s unnerving belief that the judiciary’s purpose is to stay out of his way.” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Appeals Court Panel Appears Skeptical of Trump’s Travel Ban”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Federal appeals court weighs Trump immigration order.”

Maura Dolan and Jaweed Kaleem of The Los Angeles Times report that “Judges sharply question attorneys for both sides on Trump’s travel ban.”

Alan Gomez and Richard Wolf of USA Today report that “Federal appeals court skeptical of Trump’s travel ban.”

Devlin Barrett, Brent Kendall, and Aruna Viswanatha of The Wall Street Journal report that “Court Grills Lawyers on Donald Trump’s Immigration Order; Judges fired tough questions at both sides in hearing over Trump’s travel ban, promising a quick ruling.”

Dan Levine and Emily Stephenson of Reuters report that “Judges press Trump administration on travel ban.”

Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court hammers on government arguments for travel ban.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Court dubious of government arguments on Trump’s travel ban; A federal appeals court is the next major legal test for the president’s executive order barring refugees and visitors from seven Muslim countries.”

Ariane de Vogue and Laura Jarrett of CNN.com have a report headlined “Travel ban hearing: fiery judges put lawyers on their heels.”

And Chris Geidner and Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News report that “Appeals Court Judges Skeptical Of Justice Department Arguments In Support Of Reinstating Ban; The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard one hour of arguments over the temporary restraining order against President Trump’s refugee and travel ban.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted the video of the oral argument on YouTube at this link.

“Federal judges are rarely heard in real-time outside the courtroom. For Trump’s travel ban hearing, you can listen live.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

Of course, it’s just business as usual for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

At 6 p.m. eastern time, the oral argument of this matter will be streamed live on YouTube via this link. As of the time of this post, the oral argument of other cases is being live-streamed now by the Ninth Circuit on YouTube at this link.

“Trump Team Shuffles Lawyers in Hours Before Travel Ban Hearing”: Greg Farrell and Tom Schoenberg of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Not retiring was a selfish move”: Nelson F. Crouch has this letter to the editor online at The Washington Post.

“Implementing Obergefell: Who Decides the Scope of a Newly Minted Right?” Mark Pulliam has this post today at the blog of the Library of Law and Liberty.

“A gang of 11 could end the madness of Supreme Court confirmations”: Law professor Jamal Greene has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Democrats question independence of Trump Supreme Court nominee”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“The Gorsuch nomination: What’s next.” Law professor Michael Gerhardt has this guest post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“What is the Trumpian view of the Constitution?” Eric Posner has a blog post that begins, “I’m looking for someone who will provide a legal or constitutional defense of Trump’s attack on the courts.”