“Judge won’t wipe out guilty verdict for Arpaio; Trump pardon ends criminal case but won’t ‘revise historical facts,’ court says”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

“Journalism’s Broken Business Model Won’t Be Solved by Billionaires”: William D. Cohan has this important post online at The New Yorker.

“Are the Emoluments Lawsuits Filed Against President Trump Dead?” Sheelah Kolhatkar has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Has the Supreme Court Legalized Public Corruption? By making it harder to punish official misconduct, the justices risk damage to America’s republican institutions.” Matt Ford has this report online at The Atlantic.

“Originalism and Textualism in Action: Not Constraining and Not Neutral.” Joseph Kimble has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Amy Wax on Dissent and Disagreement at Penn Law”: Federalist Society Penn Law has posted this video on YouTube.

“My Student Guide to Judicial Clerkships”: Josh Douglas has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Guns, Constitutional Tests, and Games”: Michael Dorf has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Morrissey v. U.S. and the IRS’s Hostility to Reproductive Choice”: Tessa Davis has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“What to Do about SCOTUS Mistakes: A Not-So Modest Proposal.” Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“The Perils of Statutory Interpretation”: Tessa L. Dysart has this interesting post at the “Appellate Advocacy Blog.”

“Will Trump DOJ side with disabled plaintiffs in ADA website suits?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Appeals court to review judge’s order allowing abortion for undocumented immigrant”: Maria Sacchetti and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Judges halt ruling allowing illegal immigrant girl to get abortion.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Appeals court temporarily halts order allowing abortion for teen immigration detainee; Acting with unusual haste, D.C. Circuit panel sets oral arguments for Friday.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Perry Grossman and Mark Joseph Stern have a jurisprudence essay titled “Trump’s Dred Scott: In a case about the abortion rights of undocumented minors, the Department of Justice evokes the worst Supreme Court decision of all time.”

“There’s No Good Decision in the Next Big Data Privacy Case”: Law professor Jennifer Daskal has this essay online at The New York Times.

“The Posner Effect (With Help from Kirkland & Ellis)”: Jenna Greene of The Am Law Litigation Daily has this report (subscription required for full access) discussing an opinion that Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued Tuesday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Retired Judge Posner Seeks to Help Pro Se Litigant”: Melissa Heelan Stanzione of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“A Case To Watch: Garza v. Hargan.” At the “Take Care” blog, Leah Litman has a post that begins, “Tomorrow, the D.C. Circuit will apparently hear oral argument on the government’s emergency motion to prevent an undocumented young woman from obtaining an abortion before it becomes too late for her to do so.”

“The Judge’s Code: Meet the judge who codes — and decides tech’s biggest cases.” Sarah Jeong of The Verge has an article that begins, “On May 18th, 2012, attorneys for Oracle and Google were battling over nine lines of code in a hearing before Judge William H. Alsup of the northern district of California.”

“Cert Grants Not Always Good for Business, May Spur Settlements”: Kimberly S. Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“The night Justices Scalia, Ginsburg and Kennedy sang karaoke with Renee Fleming”: Kim Janssen of The Chicago Tribune has this report.

“Trump cries foul on judges, but he’s ahead of Obama”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has this report.

Appearing soon at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: On Wednesday, October 25, 2017, I will be arguing a sentencing appeal on behalf of the defendant-appellant before a three-judge Second Circuit panel in the case captioned United States v. Mullings, No. 16-1694 (2d Cir.). You can access online my client’s Brief for Appellant and Reply Brief for Appellant.

I am so very pleased that this appeal will be receiving oral argument next Wednesday, especially because until 11:05 a.m. eastern time today, the case had been listed for submission on the briefs without oral argument. The oral argument statement that I filed on my client’s behalf on May 3, 2017 requested oral argument of the appeal. Thereafter, however, on August 25, 2017, the Second Circuit issued a docket entry stating that the case would be submitted on the briefs without oral argument. Next, on September 7, 2017, the Second Circuit issued a formal notice to the parties that the case would be accepted on submission without oral argument.

Soon after receiving the submit notice on September 7th, I picked-up the phone and called the Second Circuit’s Clerk’s Office to inquire whether there was any chance that the Second Circuit might change its mind and decide to request argument of the appeal, given that so much time still remained before the case’s submission date of October 25, 2017. Not surprisingly, the answer I received was that I should not expect any change in the case’s status from “submitted on the briefs” to “scheduled for oral argument” to occur.

Yet today at 11:05 a.m., I received an email from the Second Circuit’s CM/ECF system containing the text “REVISED CASE CALENDARING, for argument on 10/25/2017, A Panel, SET.” Moments later, the Second Circuit’s Clerk’s Office was calling me to make sure I had received that notice. And the Second Circuit’s current online calendar for next Wednesday reflects that the case is now scheduled for 10 minutes of oral argument per side, which represents a standard oral argument session. As luck would have it, my schedule for next Tuesday afternoon and all of next Wednesday remains wide open for an an oral argument-related trip to New York City. I was even able to secure a hotel room that’s only a six minute walk from the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square in Manhattan.

I don’t know if there’s a generally applicable moral to this story, but this constitutes a data point demonstrating that at least sometimes the Second Circuit decides to first notify counsel of the oral argument of an appeal less than a week before the assigned argument/submission date after previously having categorized the appeal as a submit. And, with respect to my client’s appeal, this is very welcome news.

“Scalia Sweats: How the former justice became a great writer.” Terry Eastland has this post online at The Weekly Standard.

“U.S. appeals court rejects hedge fund founder’s FBI misconduct case”: Brendan Pierson of Reuters has this report.

And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post titled “All the money in the world can’t buy redress from FBI, prosecutors.”

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

“An Analysis of DOJ’s Brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop”: Robert Post has this entry at the “Take Care” blog.

“A Changing Of The Guard At Above The Law: Change is necessary and good — for institutions, individuals, and Above the Law.” David Lat had this post yesterday at “Above the Law.”

“Who’s to Blame for America’s Sexual Harassment Nightmare? The Supreme Court, for one.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Appeals court rules that Peace Cross in Bladensburg violates the Constitution”: John Fritze of The Baltimore Sun has this report.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow has an article headlined “Towering cross-shaped monument on public land is unconstitutional, court rules.”

And Bradford Richardson of The Washington Times reports that “Peace Cross of Bladensburg ruled unconstitutional by appeals court.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.