“Trump Seeks Delay of Ruling on Health Law Subsidies, Prolonging Uncertainty”: Robert Pear of The New York Times has this report.

And Paul Demko, Jennifer Haberkorn, and Josh Dawsey of Poltico.com report that “White House seeks 90-day delay in Obamacare subsidy suit.”

“The First Batch of Decisions Each Term”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from attorney Scott J. Forster:

About 8 years ago, I sent you an email that you published in your site. It said “I got a cert grant because of your website.” I saw a case referenced that I used which led to a direct split on a sentencing issue which the Supreme Court took up. My case is Dean v. US 556 U.S. 568. (2009). I was able to argue at SCOTUS because of seeing the case on your website. I cannot thank you enough.

Scott, thank you for taking the time to remind me of that wonderful story. Although “How Appealing” cannot promise to deliver a cert. grant for each and every reader, I’m so glad it worked out for you! I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“Justices Reject 2 Gerrymandered North Carolina Districts, Citing Racial Bias”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules race improperly dominated N.C. redistricting efforts.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court finds the GOP packed black voters into two North Carolina districts to help win more House seats.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court ruling wipes out Republican-drawn House districts in N.C.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down North Carolina Congressional Districts; Court finds districts drawn to disadvantage black voters; Justice Clarence Thomas sides with liberal wing.”

Andrea Noble of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects North Carolina congressional district maps.”

Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “U.S. Supreme Court agrees NC lawmakers created illegal congressional district maps in 2011.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court strikes down 2 NC congressional districts.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court tosses Republican-drawn North Carolina voting districts.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rejects North Carolina Congressional Districts.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina congressional district maps.”

Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Throws Out Two GOP-Drawn Congressional Districts As Unconstitutional; The court concluded that North Carolina Districts 1 and 12 amounted to so-called ‘racial gerrymanders.’”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Says Race Was Improperly Used In Creating North Carolina Congressional Districts; Justice Clarence Thomas joins the more liberal justices in striking down two district maps.”

Scott Bland and Elena Schneider of Politico.com report that “Supreme Court rules North Carolina congressional districts unconstitutional.”

And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Supreme Court on 5-3 Vote Affirms NC Racial Gerrymandering Case, with Thomas in Majority and Roberts in Dissent.”

“Supreme Court Limits Where Patent-Infringement Cases Can Be Filed; Decision could limit venue-shopping in patent cases”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Justices make it easier for companies to defend patent cases.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court tightens patent suit rules in blow to ‘patent trolls.’”

And Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News report that “U.S. Supreme Court Puts New Curbs on Locations of Patent Suits.”

“Gorsuch dissents as Supreme Court upholds ban on big-money gifts to parties”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court leaves key campaign finance restriction in place.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds ‘soft money’ limits; Gorsuch, Thomas disagree.”

“U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Free Press mug shot case”: Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justices won’t hear appeal over release of federal mug shots.”

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

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, No. 16-254. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Thomas issued the opinion for a unanimous Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Breaking: #SCOTUS Declines Soft Money Case; Thomas and Gorsuch Would Vote to Hear.” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Supreme Court offers rare glimpse into life of a top justice”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this report.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case and summarily affirmed in a direct appeal case. In the direct appeal case, the order states that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch would have noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

“Status Check: Where Voting Rights Cases Stand With The Supreme Court.” This audio segment featuring law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday.”

“Despite high court’s decision on N.C. voting law, activists worry about chief justice”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“FAA Rules on Recreational Drone Registry Struck Down; Appeals court finds agency lacked authority to require registration”: Jacob Gershman had this article in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

David Koenig and Sam Hananel of The Associated Press report that “Appeals court strikes down FAA drone registration rule.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. federal court throws out case against FAA’s drone policy.”

Andrew M Harris and Alan Levin of Bloomberg News report that “Hobbyists’ Path to Drones Gets Easier as Court Rebuffs FAA.”

And David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “Court ruling nullifies US requirement that hobbyists register drones; FAA ponders options as appellate court withholds enforcing decision for seven days.”

Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavenaugh wrote Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from law professor Michael Risch:

When I first went into academia, I noticed that my colleagues (and bloggers) always seemed to know the latest cases to come out, wherever, whenever. I thought to myself, “How can all these people keep up with all of this?” I then discovered their (not so well-kept) secret — How Appealing. It’s like one stop shopping for what’s happening in the courts; a professor’s dream. Since I started teaching, keeping up has gotten easier due to modern technology, but there is still only one source that continually provides more than the rest.

Professor Risch, thank you for your email. I have heard similar realizations from others that their colleagues — whether judges, judicial law clerks, or practicing lawyers — must be “How Appealing” readers based on what legal developments they are discussing at any given time. I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“Texas House OKs new abortion limits despite court defeats”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Roaming Charges: The U.S. Supreme Court could soon consider whether police can review a cellphone’s whereabouts without a warrant.” Matt Ford of The Atlantic has this report.

“Ohio Supreme Court justice backs legalizing marijuana”: John Seewer of The Associated Press has this report.

“N.J. lawmakers want voters to decide if Supreme Court justices should keep their jobs”: S.P. Sullivan of NJ.com has this report.

“GOP talks of narrowing ‘blue-slip’ rule for judges”: Lydia Wheeler of The Hill has this report.

“Will the Presidency Survive This President? Mr. Trump’s recklessness may force Congress or the courts to constrain him, diminishing the power of the office.” Law professor Eric Posner and Emily Bazelon will have this news analysis in the Sunday Review section of tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times.

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from General William K. Suter, former Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Dear Howard:

Congratulations on 15 years! When I was Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court I read your blog almost every day. It is an excellent resource. Thank you for your service to the legal community.

Warm regards,

Bill Suter

General Suter, thank you for your very kind email and for your many years of service to the Supreme Court and our nation. It has been a pleasure to have you as a reader then and now. I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“A massive FBI child porn probe has lawyers asking: Does the end justify the means?” Stephen Montemayor has this front page article in today’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: ‘Someone Else’s Money.'” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Minnesota sex offenders seek to take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court”: Chris Serres of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

“Michigan Supreme Court justices could get 1st raise in 17 years”: Paul Egan of The Detroit Free Press has this report.

“One Of Trump’s Judicial Nominees Blogged Under A Pen Name That Ted Cruz Was A ‘Sore Loser'”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T(ing) The Denial Of Rehearing En Banc: Paging all legal nerds . . . .” David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

“8 judges on Venezuela’s Supreme Court hit with US sanctions”: Joshua Goodman and Christina Armario of The Associated Press have this report.

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

Congratulations!

Amazing 15 year run. I have read the blog nearly every day for all those years. I have probably learned something interesting about my field every week from reading HA, and something I could use to help a client in a current case at least once a month. No other online resource comes close.

Peter, thank you for the very kind email, for your friendship over the years, and for sending along blog-worthy items from time to time. I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“11th Circuit Greenlights Smokers’ Suits Against Tobacco Companies”: Katheryn Hayes Tucker of The Fulton County Daily Report has an article that begins, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a 284-page en banc opinion Thursday saying that smokers who won a class action against tobacco companies can also file individual lawsuits.”

And WUSF News reports that “Appeals Court Deals Blow To Tobacco Companies.”

Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. wrote yesterday’s majority opinion for the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat — who at least for the time being remains exempt from the word-count limits of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure — issued a 227-page dissenting opinion (excluding exhibits).

“The Constitutional Challenge To The CFPB”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Developing law’s methodology”: Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” linking to a symposium issue of The University of Chicago Law Review now available online. The issue contains a bunch of interesting submissions, including two by currently serving Seventh Circuit judges.

“Faith, Family, and Religious Freedom: A Conversation with Justice Samuel Alito.” Eric Banecker has this post at the “Seminarian Casual” blog.

“Mark your calendars now for AJEI 2017, the nation’s premier appellate educational event!” The Appellate Judges Education Institute has posted this “Save the Date” notice online.

The Summit will take place from Thursday, November 2 through Sunday, November 5, 2017 in Long Beach, California. I will be attending the Summit and will be the moderator of a panel on the morning of Saturday, November 4th that fans of appellate law blogs and of the “First Mondays” podcast won’t want to miss.