“McCaskill will vote against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee”: Lindsay Wise of The Kansas City Star has an article that begins, “Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill announced Friday that she will not support the nomination of conservative Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and will join a Democratic effort to block his confirmation vote, which is scheduled for next week.”

“Why Trump Will Have To Work With The Senate, Including Democrats, To Get His Judges Confirmed”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“FCC Loses Fax Opt-Out Ad Ruling; Court says FCC exceeded authority; FCC chair Pai agrees”: John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable has this report on the ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“The Roots of the Battle Over Neil Gorsuch: ‘They Started It.'” Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times has this report.

“Appeals court won’t release Gitmo force-feeding videos”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today. Each of the three judges on the panel issued his or her own opinion.

In other coverage, Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court blocks release of Guantanamo Bay force-feeding videos.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Court splinters in Guantanamo videos case.”

Ninth Circuit remains unwilling to order that Larry Klayman be admitted pro hac vice to represent Cliven Bundy in his high-profile criminal trial: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision late yesterday.

“Memo to Democratic senators: If you like your job, filibuster Gorsuch; If you’re a Democrat who wants to win your next election, maybe you don’t want the Supreme Court to endorse voter suppression.” Ian Millhiser has this post today at ThinkProgress.

“Gorsuch remains cagey in written answers to Senate”: Josh Gerstein and Seung Min Kim of Politico.com have this report.

En banc Fifth Circuit decides case in which on rehearing the parties were asked to address “whether this court’s rule of orderliness, properly understood, should extend to issues that were not considered by a prior panel”: You can access yesterday’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link. On the merits, the en banc court divided 8-to-7.

With regard to the “rule of orderliness,” however, the lead opinion refused to engage on that issue. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, in a very interesting dissent in which a total of seven judges joined, expressed his strong disagreement with the en banc court’s refusal to address the issues concerning the “rule of orderliness” that the case presented.

“Senate Republican Suicide: A filibuster deal with Democrats over Gorsuch would be a judicial and political disaster.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Two Senate Democrats Put Support Behind Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court; Sens. Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp face re-election in Republican-leaning states next year”: Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “First two Democrats back Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court pick.”

Mark K. Matthews of The Denver Post reports that “Sen. Cory Gardner would go ‘nuclear’ to support Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court; Sen. Michael Bennet remains on the fence about whether to support Gorsuch’s nomination.”

From Politico.com, Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim report that “Gorsuch battle brings Senate to brink of a new low; And there’s no bipartisan ‘gang’ this time to save it from itself.” And Elana Schor and Seung Min Kim report that “Manchin and Heitkamp will back Gorsuch.”

“High court pick could help decide fate of Trump’s climate policy”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“McCain Seeks Last-Ditch Deal to Avoid ‘Nuclear’ Fight on Gorsuch”: Steven T. Dennis and Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News have this report.

And Bryan Lowry of The Kansas City Star reports that “McCaskill warns Democratic donors of pitfalls of blocking Trump nominee for high court.”

“The Most Powerful Justices Across Time”: Adam Feldman has this post today at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Court Inks Victory for California Tattoo Shop Owner”: Patrick L. Gregory of Bloomberg BNA has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“The filibuster isn’t what it used to be. It’s time to bring the old way back.” Columnist George F. Will has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court asked to review legality of Guantanamo Bay tribunals”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“Big money behind Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch shows little payoff”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Supreme Court rules merchants may pursue free-speech challenge to disclose credit card fees”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article headlined “Justices Side With Free-Speech Challenge to Credit Card Fees.”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court curbs state laws on consumer price displays.”

“In Prairie-Dog Case, Appeals Court Backs Federal Power on Endangered Species; Decision is a loss for landowners in Utah who say the animals are a nuisance”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journall has this report.

And Tom James of Reuters reports that “Threatened Utah prairie dogs have their day in court . . . and win.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.

“The Empty Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Gorsuch Could Sway Climate Policy. Prepare to Be Surprised.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Neil Gorsuch and the Senate’s ‘Nuclear Option,’ Explained: Here’s everything you need to know about how Senate Republicans might end a Democratic filibuster of the president’s Supreme Court pick.” Jay Willis has this post online at GQ.

“The Gorsuch filibuster debate rages in Senate”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“Airless. Insular. Clubby. Smug. How the grossness of the Gorsuch hearings made the Supreme Court nominee vulnerable to organized resistance.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“Judge Gorsuch and Chevron Doctrine: A Defense.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Questioning Marks: Plurality Decisions and Precedential Constraint.” Law professor Ryan C. Williams has this article in the March 2017 issue of the Stanford Law Review.

“Appeals court backs injunction on sharing undercover anti-abortion videos”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post about a non-precedential decision that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination is on track to change the Senate — and further divide the country”: Paul Kane of The Washington Post has this report.

Elana Schor of Politico.com reports that “Gorsuch needs a straight flush to beat filibuster.”

And at the blog of the Library of Law and Liberty, law professor John O. McGinnis has a post titled “Is the Democrats’ Decision to Filibuster Gorsuch Irrational?”

“Here’s Why Republicans Are Confident Neil Gorsuch Will Be On The Supreme Court”: Chris Geidner, Sarah Mimms, Zoe Tillman, and Tarini Parti of BuzzFeed News have this report.

“Supreme Court throws out ruling that upheld NY credit card law”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Orders New Look at New York Credit-Card Surcharge Ban.”

“Judge Gorsuch and Chevron Doctrine Part III: The Gutierrez-Brizuela Concurring Opinion.” Asher Steinberg has this guest post — the third in a three-part series — today at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“The Standard Fare of Judges: What Happens When the Judiciary Does What It Always Does.” Daniel Deacon and Leah Litman have this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“New Mexico student loses free speech appeal over anti-lesbian essay”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that a unanimous two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday. U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil M. Gorsuch was the third judge originally assigned to the panel.

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, No. 15-1391. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court orders new look at ‘swipe fees’ law.”