“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.

“What Will Be Preet Bharara’s Legacy?” Sheelah Kolhatkar has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Why the Bundys and Their Heavily Armed Supporters Keep Getting Away with It”:
Benjamin Wallace-Wells has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“President Donald Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio”: Megan Cassidy of The Arizona Republic has this report.

And online at The New Yorker, Margaret Talbot has a post titled “Why Donald Trump Pardoned Joe Arpaio.”

“CFTC Talks EP005: CFTC Director of Enforcement James McDonald.” The Commodity Futures Trading Commission posted this podcast online today, featuring an interview with James McDonald, a former law clerk to both Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

“U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen writes: Klobuchar, Franken impede the path of an outstanding judge; Despite his superb qualifications and bipartisan support, David Stras’ advance to the federal court is being held up by Minnesota’s Democratic senators; This needs to stop.” U.S. Representative Erik Paulsen (R-MN) has this essay online at The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“[C]lass member and professional objector” Theodore Frank obtains the reversal of Subway Footlong sandwich class action settlement, which provided no benefits to class members but more than half a million in fees for class counsel: Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes issued today’s ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Championship bout coming to Minnesota Supreme Court Monday: The Legislature vs. the governor.” Rachel E. Stassen-Berger of The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota has this report.

“Showdown in the state Supreme Court on guns in courthouses”: Jimmie E. Gates of The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi has this report.

“California Supreme Court upholds most of expedited death penalty initiative”: Bob Egelko has this front page article in today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle.

And at the “At the Lectern” blog of Horvitz & Levy, David Ettinger has a post titled “Supreme Court upholds most of Prop. 66, but it refuses to be bound by the part that would have wreaked havoc on the court’s functions.”

My earlier coverage of yesterdays California Supreme Court ruling can be accessed here.

“Will Jerry Brown Tilt California Supreme Court Against Business?” Daniel Fisher has this post at Forbes.com.

“Political maps under fire as Supreme Court case on tailor-made districts looms”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Say No to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Mr. Trump”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “It would be difficult for President Trump, who has insulted judges and tried to interfere with a federal investigation, to show much more disrespect for the rule of law. But if he makes good on his implicit vow to pardon Joe Arpaio, the disgraced former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., Mr. Trump would be scorning the Constitution itself.”

“Versus Trump: Trump vs. The CFPB.” The “Take Care” blog has posted this podcast featuring Jason Harrow and Charlie Gerstein.

“Ex-Uber Engineer Asks Supreme Court to Learn From Her Ordeal”: Peter Blumberg of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Minnesota Supreme Court will livestream hearings for first time; High court to begin live broadcasts of arguments”: Erin Golden of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

“Ohio Supreme Court justice blasts Browns over anthem protest”: Fox 8 News of Cleveland has this report.

And Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Justice Bill O’Neill calls out Browns for kneeling during National Anthem.”

“Heterosexual couple take civil partnership case to Supreme Court; A heterosexual couple who want to enter a civil partnership instead of getting married have been granted the right to take their case to the Supreme Court”: BBC News has this report.

“SC judge overruled his father’s Emergency ruling with right to privacy verdict; Justice DY Chandrachud set aside the opinion of his father, Justice YV Chandrachud, in the controversial ADM Jabalpur case of 1976, saying it was seriously flawed”: Bhadra Sinha of the Hindustan Times has this report.

From The Times of India, Amit Anand Choudhary and Dhananjay Mahapatra report that “Supreme Court gives India a private life.” Additionally, Mahapatra has articles headlined “Right to privacy verdict: Author of Supreme Court order junks father;s Emergency ruling” and “Right to privacy verdict: A fundamental shift on gay rights.”

A Vaidyanathan of NDTV India has a report headlined “Right To Privacy: Father’s Judgement Overruled By Son As ‘Seriously Flawed’; Today, overturning that ruling, Justice Chandrachud’s son DY Chandrachud, wrote: ‘The judgements rendered by four judges are flawed. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human rights. No civilised state can contemplate encroachment on life and personal liberty.’”

Vidhi Doshi of The Washington Post reports that “India’s Supreme Court says privacy is a fundamental right in blow to government.”

Niharika Mandhana of The Wall Street Journal reports that “India’s Supreme Court Says Privacy is Fundamental Right; Ruling is seen as a setback for the Indian government’s ambitious plans for the country’s vast biometric database.”

Ravi Agrawal of CNN.com reports that “India Supreme Court rules privacy a ‘fundamental right’ in landmark case.”

And BBC News reports that “Indian Supreme Court in landmark ruling on privacy.”

You can access today’s 547-page ruling of the Supreme Court of India at this link.

Seventh Circuit panel reverses Judge Posner for failing to charge the jury at a federal criminal trial on the “corruptly” element of an offense: 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.

“Should Judges Use Their Roles to Effect Social Change? A dialogue about whether ‘activist judges’ are real.” Slate has posted online this jurisprudence essay, consisting of a conversation between Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner and Senior U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.), moderated by Joel Cohen.

“Why Trump Can’t Pardon Arpaio”: Law professor Martin H. Redish has this essay online at The New York Times.

“A New Romance: Trump Has Made Progressives Fall in Love With Federalism.” Cristian Farias has this post at the “Daily Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine.

“Judge Niemeyer’s dissent is the real headline in Maryland political gerrymandering case”: Steve Klepper has this post at the “Maryland Appellate Blog.”

“Legal ruling in: Facebook ‘friends’ aren’t necessarily real friends.” David Ovalle of The Miami Herald has this report.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jacob Gershman has an article headlined “Florida Appeals Court Rules Judges Can Be Facebook Friends With Lawyers; Boundaries of virtual ‘friendships’ have divided the legal world as more judges join social-media sites.”

And Megan Cerullo of The New York Daily News has an article headlined “Facebook ‘friends’ aren’t real, judge says.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal at this link.

In Bashman news from Australia: Jorge Branco of The Brisbane Times reports that “Up to five people bash man with baseball bats and planks of wood.”

“Come for the sex toys. Stay for the newly created circuit split on mootness.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Flake hearing airs arguments to break up 9th Circuit”: Diamond Naga Siu of Politico.com has this blog post.

“A Judge Wants a Bigger Role for Female Lawyers. So He Made a Rule.” Alan Feuer has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court upholds law to speed up executions in California”: Alexei Koseff and Adam Ashton of The Sacramento Bee have this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of California issued today.

And in other coverage, Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “California Supreme Court rules Prop. 66 didn’t impose hard deadlines for death penalty appeals.”

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak at UNF”: Hannah Lee of the UNF Spinnaker, the student news site of the University of North Florida, has a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer is scheduled to speak at UNF on Jan. 22, 2018.”

“Appeals Court Grapples With Digital Files, and the Business of Selling ‘Used’ Songs; With predictions of a high-stakes Supreme Court review, a marathon court hearing is held over whether the first-sale doctrine has survived the digital era”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

Therein, Gardner writes, “In a hearing that was scheduled to last 24 minutes but stretched past two hours, a panel of three judges regarded the past, present and future of digital entertainment.”

You can access via this link (62.1 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of Tuesday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“Appeals court panel rules against coach Kennedy in postgame prayer case”: Andrew Binion of The Kitsap Sun has this report.

Mike Carter of The Seattle Times reports that “Appeals court refuses to reinstate Bremerton coach who prayed after games.”

And Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Football coach’s on-field prayer not protected by Constitution, appeals court rules.”

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