“The Simple Answer to Judge Paez’s Question about Korematsu”: Josh Blackman has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“Pa. Man Fights Honda’s Bid To Rehear Appeal Of $55M Verdict”: Dan Packel of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a court filing that I linked to in this post from yesterday.

“John K. Bush — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Arizona prison officials cannot read inmates’ legal mail: appeals court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Democratic attorneys general seek to intervene in Obamacare case”: Dan Levine, Lawrence Hurley, and Yasmeen Abutaleb of Reuters have this report.

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from law professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author David J. Garrow — whose newest book, “Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama,” became available for purchase last week:

For all of 15 years now, you have offered a remarkable and indeed incalculable pro bono contribution toward increasing thousands of readers’ awareness and knowledge of what’s taking place in American courts and law. Apart from your remarkably brief and arguably insufficient once-a-year weekly vacation, I believe I can accurately state that I click on my How Appealing bookmark each and every day. I wish you every continued professional and personal success.

David, thanks so much for your very kind words and for your friendship over the years. I wholeheartedly accept your advice to take more vacations! I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“A Trump Supreme Court Short-Lister Backs Up Sessions’ Latest Criminal Justice Move”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Trump’s first circuit judge nominee advances to Senate for confirmation”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article that begins, “The first of President Trump’s slate of circuit court nominees cleared the Judiciary Committee on Thursday as Republicans prepared to move swiftly on stocking the federal courts with what backers hope will be an army of conservatives.”

“Court OKs plan for $380M in Native American farmer lawsuit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued on Tuesday.

The dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the issue of cy pres is worthy of attention.

View live, online this morning’s Executive Business Meeting of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: Via this link. On the agenda, the committee is scheduled to consider and vote on whether to recommend confirmation of U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar (E.D. Ky.) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Google it: Court rules that ‘Google’ is not a generic term.” Michael Kiefer of The Arizona Republic has this report.

Peter Blumberg and Jef Feeley of Bloomberg News report that “Google Hangs Onto Its Trademark in Court.”

David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “‘Genericide’ legal assault to nullify the Google trademark fails; Google doesn’t lose trademark even if it is a generic term for searching the Web.”

And Nathan J. Fish of Cronkite News has a report headlined “Google this: Court rejects Arizona man’s claim against Google trademark.”

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

“Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court”: Steve Kurtz and Georeen Tanner of FoxNews.com have this report.

“Supreme Court May Weigh Big Weapon for U.S. Companies Sued Abroad; A $9.5 billion pollution lawsuit against Chevron could clarify the reach of racketeering law”: Paul Barrett of Bloomberg Businessweek has this report.

“Former Minn. Supreme Court Justice Alan Page on life, education, football and the law”: Minnesota Public Radio posted this lengthy audio segment online yesterday.

“Supreme Court Justice Sounds Alarm On Speech, Religious Liberty”: Mark Abrams of CBS Philly has this report.

“Trump’s Justice: Neil Gorsuch will be the enduring symbol of a disastrous presidency.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“‘Blue slips’ give Democrats power over Trump’s court nominees”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“John Marshall: Patriot, Statesman, Chief Justice.” Speaking of the Great Chief Justice, next Thursday this exhibit about him opens at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Thanks to a friend of this blog, I am looking forward to checking-out the exhibit at its opening reception next Wednesday evening.

The Claremont Institute announces its 2017 John Marshall Fellows: You can view the list at this link.

What’s going on? This afternoon, in my capacity as appellate counsel for plaintiffs-appellees in the case captioned Martinez v. American Honda Motor Co., I filed this answer in opposition to Honda’s application for reargument.

As noted in this earlier post, on April 19, 2017 a unanimous three-judge panel of the Pa. Superior Court issued an unpublished, non-precedential memorandum opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment in plaintiffs’ favor.

“Justice tells seminary grads religious liberty under threat”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Fit to Be Tied: When Appellate Courts Are Evenly Divided.” Yesterday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, contained this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column.

Here’s a fun fact on the occasion of this blog’s 15th birthday, recently celebrated. I originally came up with “How Appealing” as a possible name for my monthly Legal Intelligencer column, which started way back in December 2000. The publication’s then-editor in chief chose a different title, leaving “How Appealing” available to serve as this blog’s title since May 6, 2002.

“Not the 25th amendment”: Eric Posner has this blog post.

“UC Irvine law dean Erwin Chemerinsky named dean of Berkeley’s law school, will begin July 1”: Chris Haire of The Orange County Register has this report.

And Evan Sernoffsky of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Erwin Chemerinsky named dean of Berkeley Law.”

Update: At his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “A Few Words About Erwin Chemerinsky, Leaving as UCI Law Dean.”

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from U.S. District Judge, and nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Amul R. Thapar (E.D. Ky.):

The blog truly is a service to those of us on the bench. My colleagues and I really appreciate it. Judges regularly talk about how valuable a resource it is. Congratulations and thank you!

Judge Thapar, thank you for this very kind email. It was a pleasure to meet you, and to get to spend some time with you and several of your colleagues from that district court, at last year’s Sixth Circuit conference. I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“Trump’s values are abhorrent to the Federalist Society of conservative lawyers. That doesn’t stop them from helping him.” Henry Farrell has this entry at the “Monkey Cage” blog of The Washington Post.

“For Voting Rights Advocates, Court Decision Is ‘Temporary Victory'”: Michael Wines has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“November races for statewide judicial elections set”: Karen Langley of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Garland has no interest in leaving judiciary for FBI, source says”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“Bad Faith? What’s That? The Justice Department’s attempts to wish away Donald Trump’s Muslim ban statements are not working.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Spokeo backlash: Dismissed in federal court, class actions move to states.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.

“Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case”: Adam Liptak and Michael Wines have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court won’t review decision that found N.C. voting law discriminates against African Americans.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “North Carolina voting law falls as Supreme Court turns down GOP appeal.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Voting advocates call Supreme Court’s decision not to hear North Carolina case a win.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal Seeking to Revive North Carolina’s Stricter Voting Rules; State moved to drop defense of voting rules after Democrat became governor.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchyDC reports that “Opponents of strict voter-ID laws get a victory, but it may not last.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court declines to revive North Carolina’s voter ID law.”

In today’s edition of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, Anne Blythe has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court won’t rescue NC voter ID law; GOP leaders say they will try again with new law.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court order unlikely to deter voting restrictions.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court lets North Carolina voter law die, pleasing rights groups.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Revive North Carolina Voter-ID Law.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to ruling striking down NC voter ID law.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court leaves in place ruling that struck down N.C.’s voter ID law.”

Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Restrictive North Carolina Voting Law Is Dead After Supreme Court Refuses To Review It; An appeals court found that the restrictions harked back to the Jim Crow era.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “North Carolina’s ‘Monster’ Voter-Suppression Law Is Dead; It may have been too overtly racist for the Supreme Court; But don’t think the battle is over.”

15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from Tony Mauro, who covers the U.S. Supreme Court for The National Law Journal:

In the early days of How Appealing, you may recall that when you went a day or so without posting, I would email you to be sure you were okay. That was partly out of concern for a friend, but also because it was difficult for a journalist covering the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts to function without your blog. It is not flashy or snarky, but it is indispensable for those of us who drink our coffee from #appellatetwitter mugs. It has made appellate law and courts accessible in ways that no one could have imagined before you launched it in 2002. Five years ago, when I interviewed you on the blog’s tenth anniversary, I asked you why you kept it alive for so long. You acknowledged that it has helped your practice in some ways, but said “the main reason that I have kept the blog going for ten years now is that I really enjoy maintaining it.” Here’s hoping that you still enjoy it and will keep it chugging along for years to come.

Tony, thanks so very much for this wonderful email! As you have explained, you are single-handedly responsible for all of the “Programming Note” posts that have appeared over the years preceding any extended absences from blogging. You were the first journalist to write an article drawing attention to “How Appealing,” which enabled this blog to gain many enthusiastic readers early in its tenure. And the role you played in helping the blog find a home at law.com for many years is greatly appreciated. I likewise hope that you too stay at it for many years to come. I will post another reader email tomorrow.

“3 Judges Weigh Trump’s Revised Travel Ban, but Keep Their Poker Faces”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Maura Dolan, Rick Anderson, and Jaweed Kaleem of The Los Angeles Times have an article headlined “Was Trump’s travel ban targeted at Muslims? A federal appeals court zeroes in on the debate.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky has an article headlined “Judges in travel ban appeal press lawyers about Trump’s comments.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Judge compares Trump travel ban to Japanese American internment.”

Patrick May of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Trump’s travel ban comes under harsh criticism before the 9th Circuit; A federal panel in Seattle heard arguments on whether the president’s ban is unconstitutional.”

Daniel DeMay of SeattlePI.com reports that “Trump lawyer suggests ‘Muslim ban’ just campaign rhetoric.”

Rui Kaneya of Honolulu Civil Beat reports that “Federal Judges Question Whether Trump’s Travel Ban Is A ‘Muslim Ban’; A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel Monday heard arguments in Hawaii’s lawsuit to block key parts of the executive order restricting travel and immigration from countries.”

Gene Johnson of The Associated Press reports that “Federal judges ask if travel ban is biased against Muslims.”

Tom James of Reuters reports that “In travel ban case, U.S. judges focus on discrimination, Trump’s powers.”

Kartikay Mehrotra of Bloomberg News reports that “Travel Ban Hearing Puts Trump’s Stump Rhetoric on Trial.”

Laura Jarrett of CNN.com reports that “9th Circuit presses Trump admin on legality of travel ban.”

Lee Ross of FoxNews.com reports that “Trump travel ban faces skeptical panel in 9th Circuit hearing.”

Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Donald Trump’s Least Favorite Court Grills Lawyers In Travel Ban Case; The 9th Circuit has previously ruled against the president’s blocked executive orders.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “For The Second Time In Two Weeks, Judges Question Trump’s Travel Ban.”

And in commentary, at the “Lawfare” blog, Josh Blackman has a post titled “Hawaii v. Trump: What Would an ‘Objective Observer’ Think of President Trump’s Travel Ban?”

“The Garland Gambit: Republicans floating Merrick Garland for FBI director should be careful what they wish for.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.