“Will the Death Penalty Ever Die?” Senior U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) has this review of the book “Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment” by law professors Carol S. Steiker and Jordan M. Steiker in the June 8, 2017 issue of The New York Review of Books.

“Supreme Court Roundup: Justices Rule on Excessive Force and in Immigration Case.” 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 “Supreme Court halts award against 2 Los Angeles County officers who shot couple.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court makes it harder to sue police for barging into homes.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Overturns Deportation in Statutory Rape Case; Supreme Court rules consensual sex between 21-year-old permanent resident and his 16-year-old girlfriend isn’t grounds for removal.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court sides with police over shooting of homeless couple.”

“High court to review Ohio’s method for removing voters from registration rolls”: Robert Barnes has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear case on Ohio voter purges.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court to Review Ohio’s Scaled-Back Voter Rolls; Lower court found state’s procedure was too sweeping.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to rule on states’ ability to clean up voter lists.”

Jessica Wehrman and Jack Torry of The Dayton Daily News report that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Ohio case on canceled voter registrations.”

Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court will hear Ohio voter purging case.”

Doug Livingston of The Akron Beacon Journal reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of purging voters in Ohio.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Justices will hear Ohio appeal over purging voter rolls.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Ohio’s bid to revive voter purge policy.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court will consider Ohio voter purge case.”

Matt Ford of The Atlantic has a report headlined “Use It or Lose It? The U.S. Supreme Court will review an Ohio procedure that removes voters from the rolls if they haven’t cast a ballot in six years and fail to return a postcard.”

Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court To Weigh In On Tactic For Kicking People Off Voter Rolls; Ohio officials are illegally targeting people for not voting, plaintiffs say.”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Can states adopt ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ limits on voting rights?”

“Court Files Raise Question: Was Dylann Roof Competent to Defend Himself?” Kevin Sack of The New York Times has this report.

“The Supreme Court rises above politics”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Trump’s Travel Ban Is Headed for a Supreme Court Showdown: Will the justices, many of whom worked in the executive branch, hold the president’s words against him?” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Bad hombres, good hombres: The Supreme Court protects a Mexican immigrant from deportation; But another court upholds the deportation of a long-time resident — and denounces the administration’s immigration policies.” Steven Mazie has this post today at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Judge tosses Chamber’s wage equity lawsuit”: Tricia L. Nadolny of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article that begins, “The lawsuit aiming to strike down Philadelphia’s new wage equity law has been tossed out by a federal judge because the group that filed it, the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, did not identify a single business the law would harm.”

My coverage of this matter began on January 10, 2017 in a post titled “Miguel Estrada warns City of Philadelphia that his hourly rate is very expensive.”

“Leaked regulation: Trump plans to roll back Obamacare birth control mandate; The administration is mulling broad exemptions from the health law requirement.” Dylan Scott and Sarah Kliff of Vox.com have this report.

“Wye fellow Discussions with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg”: The Aspen Institute has posted this video on YouTube.

My post from earlier today linking to news coverage of this event can be accessed here.

“Feds Say Supreme Court Is ‘Likely’ To Hear A Case They Haven’t Even Asked The Justices To Hear”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“High court gaffe nets Boston attorney apology”: Kimberly Atkins of The Boston Herald has an article that begins, “If you live in New England and have an Irish name, chances are someone else has it, too. And even the nation’s highest court can make a mistake.”

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from attorney Kenneth Weatherwax, a longtime reader of this blog:

How Appealing stands, in my view, at the fulcrum of appellate law.

I began reading How Appealing in 2002, while clerking for Circuit Judge Robert Beezer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The blog was new then, but it was already, in my view, indispensable for any attorney who wishes to keep up with what is happening in law across the country.

Most good blogs on the Internet are chatty and exist mainly to set forth the interesting viewpoints of the blogger. Most good news aggregators on the Internet are automatic or only lightly edited. Howard’s blog stands at the intersection of the two. It provides an immense amount of information, and it reflects Howard’s interesting take on the law, and yet it is short, to the point, and easily used, and it has been extraordinarily consistent from its founding and over an extraordinary period of time.

That is not easy. I am convinced it is very, very difficult. As far as I know only three people on the Internet have succeeded at doing it: Glenn Reynolds, Matt Drudge, and Howard Bashman. I look forward to the fourth and fifth people to do it, but until then and afterward, I will continue to enjoy Howard’s collecting of the best legal reporting that the Internet has available’

The fact that Howard is also someone who has risen to and stayed at the pinnacle of his profession – i.e., his day job – just makes what he does all the more impressive. J.R.R. Tolkien is a good comparison. When you think about it, Tolkien was not only a successful author of supposedly unimportant, ephemeral books, which of course, turned out to be enduring classics, but he was also at the same time a full professor at Oxford and one of the best, and most respected, linguists in the world. Howard may never have been the victim of that particular comparison before, but I think it is apt.

Happy 15th, Howard.

Kenneth, thanks so very much for that truly delightful email. It has been a pleasure having you as a reader of “How Appealing” since this blog’s earliest days. And let me thank each and every reader who took the time to send along an email commemorating this blog’s 15th birthday. I have read and am thankful for every last one of those. As I have said many times before, having such wonderful readers makes this effort worthwhile.

“They dismissed her as a lightweight. But California’s top judge has found her voice — and uses it to call out Trump policies.” Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Should the President’s Words Matter in Court?” Law professor Kate Shaw has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Justice Ginsburg talks about career”: Doug Bishop recently had this article in The Star Democrat of Easton, Maryland.

“Silk Road’s Ulbricht loses bid to void conviction, life sentence”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this early report on a 139-page ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Infrequently Asked Questions”: Law professor Edward T. Swaine has posted this article on SSRN. The article’s syllabus begins, “If appellate advocates could hear from courts about topics that might be raised during oral argument — as opposed to relying solely on their ability to anticipate the issues — might their answers be better?”

As I noted in this post from yesterday, the article appears in the Fall 2016 issue of The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process.

“‘Even the good hombres are not safe’: Federal judge slams Trump deportations.” Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Judge: Trump deportation order for man in Hawaii ‘inhumane.’”

Catherine E. Shoichet of CNN.com has a report headlined “Judge on Trump deportation policies: ‘Even the good hombres are not safe.’”

And Adolfo Flores of BuzzFeed News reports that “Judge Slams Trump Administration Over Deportation Calling It ‘Inhumane’; ‘Three United States-citizen children will now have to choose between their father and their country,’ the judge wrote in a blistering opinion Tuesday.”

You can access the concurring opinion that Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt issued yesterday at this link.

“‘Pink slime’ defamation trial set to start in South Dakota”: James Nord of The Associated Press has this report.

And in local coverage, Nick Hytrek of The Sioux City (Iowa) Journal reports that “BPI defamation case vs. ABC set for trial.”

“Appeals court sides with transgender student in Wis. school bathroom case”: Emma Brown of The Washington Post has this report.

Joe Palazzolo of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Sides With Transgender High School Student in Wisconsin; Appeals court ruled unanimously in favor of 17-year-old Ash Whitaker in Kenosha bathroom case.”

Cara Lombardo of The Associated Press reports that “Transgender student wins appeal in final week of school.”

Jonathan Allen of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court sides with transgender student in bathroom case.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Federal Appeals Court Rules In Favor Of Transgender Student; A big ruling in the fight for transgender rights — over Ash Whitaker’s ‘simple request: to use the boys’ restroom while at school.’”

And Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Transgender Teen Wins Landmark Ruling Over Right To Use Boys Bathroom; An appeals court ruled that both the Constitution and federal law protect trans students from discrimination.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Court of Appeals hears arguments on physician-assisted suicide”: Yancey Roy of Newsday has this report.

Tom Precious of The Buffalo News reports that “NY’s high court hears arguments in closely watched assisted suicide case.”

David Klepper of The Associated Press reports that “New York’s high court hears physician-assisted suicide case.”

And Matthew Hamilton of The Times Union of Albany, New York previewed today’s oral argument in the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — in an article headlined “N.Y.’s highest court to hear ‘aid in dying’ appeal.”

“Supreme Court rules statutory rape does not automatically trigger deportation”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And Kate Irby of McClatchyDC has an article headlined “He had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend and was almost deported. Now he can stay.”

“How Trump Gave the Supreme Court a Second Chance on Japanese Internment: The president’s travel ban gives Anthony Kennedy an opening to right a historical wrong.” Law professor Richard Primus has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

He was a victim of circumstances: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court suspends wrong lawyer over ‘mistaken identity.’” According to the article, this does not mark the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has initiated attorney disciplinary proceedings against the wrong person.

“Esquivel-Quintana and Chevron Avoidance”: Asher Steinberg has this post at his blog, “The Narrowest Grounds.”

In today’s mail: I received a copy (more accurately, I received two identical copies) of the Fall 2016 issue of The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process.

The issue includes, among other things, an essay from Senior First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez based on his remarks in this 2016 Constitution Day Lecture.

And law professor Edward T. Swaine has an interesting article titled “Infrequently Asked Questions” about what judges might do to help improve the usefulness of oral argument on appeal.

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from attorney Elaine Mittleman:

You must realize how much your blog is used and appreciated based on the many emails you have received congratulating you on the 15th anniversary of the blog.

I rely on your blog for a thorough and efficient source of information and articles about important legal issues and decisions. One aspect of the blog I particularly appreciate is that I can be sure that your blog is not pushing an agenda or perspective, but is designed to inform and present a variety of perspectives. The scope of its coverage is remarkable.

An unmatched achievement is the 20 Questions series. I think that this series has provided a unique and irreplaceable perspective about important judges. The 20 Questions with Judge Richard S. Arnold includes such a meaningful discussion. I relied on the 20 Questions when I wrote about Judge Arnold.

Thank you for your continued energy and dedication in writing How Appealing.

Elaine, thanks so very much for your wonderful email and for being a faithful reader of the blog for so many years. Because tomorrow will be the last day of May — the month in which this blog celebrates its birthday — I will be posting the final reader email in this blog’s 15th birthday commemoration series tomorrow.

“The Next Ginsburg and Scalia? Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito look like they’re becoming the best of frenemies.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

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

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, No. 16-369. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is the first merits opinion in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch participated. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, No. 16-54. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1189. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Recalibrating Judicial Renominations in the Trump Administration”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this article at the Washington and Lee Law Review Online.

“It Matters How and When SCOTUS Reviews the Muslim Ban”: Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case and requested the views of the Acting Solicitor General in one case.

The final entry on today’s Order List pertained to the subject of Attorney Discipline:

Due to mistaken identity, the order suspending Christopher Patrick Sullivan of Boston, Massachusetts from the practice of law in this Court, dated May 15, 2017, is vacated and the Rule to Show Cause issued on that date is discharged.

It was a case of mistaken identity!

In early news coverage, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Voter-Purge Effort by Ohio Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review” and “Tilton Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on SEC Fraud Complaint.”

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from an attorney who asked that I not identify him by name:

I wanted you to know that I have been a loyal reader from the beginning. I practice in a rather niche area and don’t see many appeals, but I almost always find something useful or at least interesting in the cases you cover. I also appreciate the gentle humor in your posts.

Keep on trucking, brakes unfrozen.

Thanks for that very kind email and for the frozen trucker reference it contains. I will post another reader email tomorrow. This feature will conclude with a final reader email — one of my favorites — on Wednesday, the last day of the month in which this blog celebrates its birthday.

“White House Acts to Roll Back Birth-Control Mandate for Religious Employers”: Robert Pear of The New York Times has this report.