“Law prof (and ex-Scalia clerk): Evidence shows class actions deter corporate misconduct.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“The New Front in the Gerrymandering Wars: Democracy vs. Math; Sophisticated computer modeling has taken district manipulation to new extremes; To fix this, courts might have to learn how to run the numbers themselves.” Emily Bazelon will have this article in the September 3, 2017 issue of The New York Times Magazine.

“Originalism as a Constraint on Judges”: Law professor William Baude has posted this essay on SSRN.

“Jury Awards UCSB Alum $120,000 in Excessive Force Case; Jay Shafer ‘Mortified and Shamed’ by Water Balloon Incident; County Considers Challenging Verdict”: Tyler Hayden of The Santa Barbara Independent had this report back in December 2014.

And in January 2015, Danny Kolosta of The Daily Nexus — the student newspaper of UC Santa Barbara — had an article headlined “Federal Court Orders County to Pay Alum for Damages.”

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that overturned the jury verdict, holding that a police officer who used a leg sweep maneuver to take down the plaintiff after he refused to comply with the officer’s orders to drop the water balloons he was carrying was entitled to qualified immunity.

“Designated driver” has no heightened duty of care under North Dakota law, Eighth Circuit rules: You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“9th Circ. Says CIA FOIA Request Wrongly Rejected Over Form”: Daniel Wilson 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.

“Appeals Panel Sides With Lincoln in Religious Fliers Lawsuit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

“Court: Excluding outside parties from presidential debates does not violate First Amendment.” Megan R. Wilson of The Hill has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Lawsuit by third-party candidates properly dismissed.”

In the September 2017 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Court rules on birth certificate designations for same-sex parents.”

David L. Hudson Jr. has an article headlined “Stifling Speech: Government invokes doctrine to silence expression it doesn’t like.”

And the magazine contains an article headlined “University of Virginia professor takes over part of civil procedure guidebooks, joins Supreme Court committee.”

“Supreme Court 2016 Statutory Term in Review: A Postscript on Why the Majority Joined Breyer’s Opinion in Midland.” Asher Steinberg has this follow-up post at his blog, “The Narrowest Grounds.”

“Four Posts Replying to Dorf on Originalism”: Lawrence Solum has this entry at his “Legal Theory Blog.”

“Appeals Court Appears Inclined to Exempt Relatives From Travel Ban”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Jaweed Kaleem of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “‘What universe does that come from?’ Judges criticize travel ban weeks before it heads to Supreme Court.”

Gene Johnson of The Associated Press reports that “Justice Department faces tough questions over travel ban.”

Eric M. Johnson of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court questions scope of Trump travel ban.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “9th Circuit hears fight over interpretation of Trump travel ban.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Ninth Circuit Has Tough Questions On Trump Administration’s Travel Ban Rules; ‘How can the government say’ a grandparent or aunt or uncle isn’t a close family member, one judge asked; ‘In what universe does that come from?’”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Appeals judges skeptical on Trump immigration limits.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted the video of yesterday’s oral argument on YouTube at this link.

“Trump travel ban back in court Monday; Appeals court arguments are expected to focus on handling of refugees”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will stream the oral argument live on YouTube beginning at 5 p.m. eastern, 2 p.m. pacific time.

“The Arpaio Pardon Dangerously Accelerates Trump’s Assault on the Rule of Law”: Jane Chong has this post online at The New Yorker.

And at the “Lawfare” blog, Benjamin Wittes and Jane Chong have a post titled “It’s Time: Congress Needs to Open a Formal Impeachment Inquiry.”

“The Fake-News Fallacy: Old fights about radio have lessons for new fights about the Internet.” Adrian Chen has this “A Critic at Large” essay in the September 4, 2017 issue of The New Yorker.

“How Determinate is Originalism in Practice?” Michael Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Judges remain silent as Trump pardons Arpaio”: Joan Biskupic of CNN.com has this news analysis.

“Trump’s Legal U-Turns May Test Supreme Court’s Patience”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Justices to hear court appointments case”: Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida has an article that begins, “The Florida Supreme Court said Friday it will hear arguments this fall in a case that could help shape the future of the court. The Supreme Court scheduled arguments for Nov. 1 in a battle about whether Gov. Rick Scott will have the authority to appoint as many as three new justices as he leaves office in January 2019.”

“Support piling up in Arlene’s Flowers request for Supreme Court review”: Annette Cary of The Tri-City Herald of Kennewick, Washington has this report.

“18 inmates to get execution dates after California Supreme Court ruling”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Kenosha schools ask U.S. Supreme Court to take up transgender bathroom issue”: Annysa Johnson of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“AmEx Defends Appeals Court Win to Supreme Court”: Liz Crampton and Eleanor Tyler of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“Cash Bail’s Lonely Defender”: This editorial appeared in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Coach Prays, Ninth Circuit Says No — Blame Supreme Court Conservatives; In 2006, five justices restricted the free-speech rights of public employees; in 2017, we see the consequences”: David French has this essay online at National Review.

“Critics: Trump pardon his latest affront against judiciary.” Darlene Superville of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court 2016 Statutory Term in Review: Purposively Interpreting Statutes That Don’t Say Much in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson.” Asher Steinberg has this post at his blog, “The Narrowest Grounds.”

“After losses on voting laws and districting, Texas turns to Supreme Court”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“The Court’s Most Cited Decisions of 2016”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“How Will the Supreme Court Respond to the Arpaio Pardon? Though its major import is President Trump’s official endorsement of racist discrimination in law enforcement, a flagrant contempt for judges is the subtext.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Arpaio Pardon Is a Bad Sign for the Mueller Investigation; Trump has always wanted to stifle judicial oversight; Now he’s shown he will.”

At his “Impeachable Offenses?” blog, law professor Frank O. Bowman, III has a post titled “Pardoning Arpaio: The first verifiable impeachable offense.”

And at his “Dorf on Law” blog, Michael Dorf has a post titled “The Arpaio Pardon Through the Lens of Trump Exceptionalism.”

“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.