“Lawsuit over Subway ‘footlong’ subs was a ‘racket’ benefiting only lawyers, judge says”: Kim Janssen of The Chicago Tribune has this report.

Andrew Blake of The Washington Times reports that “Appeals court rejects ‘worthless’ Subway foot-long settlement between sandwich chain and customers; Lawsuit was ‘no better than a racket and should be dismissed out of hand’ writes judge.”

And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has an article headlined “‘Worthless’ Subway ‘Footlong’ sandwich settlement is thrown out: U.S. court.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Seventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Why Trump’s Pardon of Arpaio Follows Law, Yet Challenges It”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“En banc 11th Circuit rules 6-5 that Florida felony battery is a violent felony under the Sentencing Guidelines”: David Oscar Markus has this post at “The SDFLA Blog” on an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

The opening line of the previously vacated majority opinion of the original three-judge panel in the case was memorable: “When I was growing up, my parents told me not to judge a book by its cover.”

“FOIA Group That Got Al-Awlaki Memos Wins Fees In 9th Circ.” Jack Newsham of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday. Each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately.

“New SCOTUS brief in Dodd-Frank whistleblower case: SEC doesn’t deserve deference.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Judges must decide when prisoner should be shackled”: Howard Fischer of Arizona’s Capitol Media Services has an article that begins, “An appeals court on Friday slapped down Arizona federal judges for ignoring their order limiting when prisoners can be shackled.”

You can access Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting a writ of mandamus at this link.

UCLA’s Supreme Court Clinic obtains U.S. Supreme Court review in another case: Yesterday, while many were focused on the typical late summer marginalia, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in a new case, Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067. You can access yesterday’s Order List at this link.

The new case is notable not only for the interesting question that it presents, but also because the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic represents the petitioner.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Unsolicited Advice to 2Ls and 3Ls.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.