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backs injunction on sharing undercover anti-abortion videos”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post about a non-precedential decision that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.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

“White House interviewing young lawyers for federal judgeships”: Politico.com’s “Playbook” has this report.

“The Fundamental Dishonesty of the Gorsuch Hearings: The confirmation process has shed little light on the philosophy of President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court or on what kind of justice he will be.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

Therein, Epps writes, “In his answers to senators, Gorsuch seemed like a man whom one would dread sitting next to on a long airplane trip. The charm he displayed was oddly repellent; his vaunted humility was relentlessly overbearing; and his open-mindedness was rigidly dogmatic. He seemed to have trouble concealing contempt for the process, his questioners, and the public itself. Gorsuch was by turns condescending, evasive, and even dishonest. In fact, it’s not too much to say that he, in his aw-shucks gentlemanly way, gaslighted the committee in a genteel but nonetheless Trumpian style.”