“Undocumented teen’s abortion re-energizes legal debate”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“3 Third Circuit judges will speak at Judges and Journalists program in Pittsburgh”: Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog” about a program taking place in Pittsburgh next Tuesday. As Stiegler’s post notes, among the presenters is “some guy named Howard Bashman.”

Any “How Appealing” readers who attend the program should be sure to say hello. I will be arriving in Pittsburgh on Monday evening to grab dinner with a long-time “How Appealing” reader who also happens to be a Pulitzer prize-winning historian.

“Former U.S. appeals court Judge Richard Posner: Get rid of lawyers.” Kim Janssen of The Chicago Tribune has this report.

Access online the audio from my Second Circuit oral argument today in a federal sentencing appeal: You can access the oral argument audio via this link (27.3 MB mp3 oral argument audio). I previously linked to the appellate briefs that I filed on my client’s behalf in this earlier post.

After the argument, a person in the audience came up to say hello and mentioned that he decided to attend the oral argument — and bring along his mom too(!) — after reading on this very blog that I was arguing an appeal at the Second Circuit this morning. Of course, I was a little bit jealous because I cannot even entice my own mother to attend my appellate oral arguments. And my son, who is attending law school in Manhattan (indeed, he is at the same law school from which one of the three judges on my panel graduated) could not even attend my oral argument because his first class this morning began at 11 a.m. Lest you worry that this “How Appealing” reader wasted his valuable time this morning attending an oral argument that he could have just as easily listened to online, attending in-person did confer one benefit, which is that both he and his mom got to see and hear an oral argument occurring earlier this morning whose audio the panel agreed to seal and thus won’t be made publicly available.

Before leaving the courthouse, I had hoped to say hello to an acquaintance who is now a federal district judge with chambers in the same building in which my oral argument took place, but there is no confirmation she even saw my email asking if she was available for me to say hello, which I sent to her supposedly evergreen college email account. Perhaps next time I will just call.

Lastly, although I was nowhere near the Fifth Circuit’s headquarters in New Orleans, after my oral argument I grabbed a tasty lunch at a nearby Cajun restaurant. And now I’m back home, where I will await the court’s ruling with interest.

Programming note: This morning, I will be arguing a sentencing appeal to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Once that has concluded, I will be heading back to the Philadelphia area, where I work and reside.

As a result, additional posts will not appear here until later today. In the interim, as is often the case while I am traveling, appellate-related retweets are likely to appear at this blog’s Twitter feed.

“The Rank-Order Method for Appellate Subset Selection”: Michael J. Hasday has this essay at the Notre Dame Law Review Online Supplement.

“Appeals court in Washington allows detained immigrant teen to seek abortion”: Ann E. Marimow and Maria Sacchetti of The Washington Post have this report.

Manny Fernandez of The New York Times reports that “U.S. Must Let Undocumented Teenager Get an Abortion, Appeals Court Says.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Federal court says undocumented teen can get abortion.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Rules Trump Administration Must Allow Undocumented Teen to Seek Abortion; Appeals court voted 6-3 along ideological lines in favor of the 17-year-old.”

Jackie Wang of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Unauthorized teen immigrant in Texas can have an abortion, appeals court rules.”

Ariane de Vogue and Emanuella Grinberg of CNN.com report that “Federal court paves way for undocumented teen to have abortion.”

Renuka Rayasam and Josh Gerstein of Politico.com report that “Federal appeals court clears way for undocumented teen to get abortion; It’s not clear how soon the girl could have an abortion.”

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Federal Appeals Court Just Ruled That An Undocumented Teen Can Get An Abortion.”

You can access today’s 6-to-3 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Ryan Walsh, ’12: Serving the Public by Emulating Influential Mentors.” The University of Chicago Law School has posted online a profile that begins, “As the chief deputy solicitor general of the state of Wisconsin, Ryan Walsh, ’12, has an essential role in defending the state’s legislative actions and criminal prosecutions in state and federal courts of appeal, including at the US Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court Wipes Out Travel Ban Appeal”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

Judge Posner has already helped a convicted pro se litigant obtain a new trial: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this per curiam opinion today. Now that Judge Posner has retired from the judiciary, he will need to find new ways to help pro se litigants in their quest for justice.

And at “Above the Law,” Joe Patrice has a post titled “Circuit Agrees With Judge Posner On Treating Pro Se Litigants Better . . . By Benchslapping Judge Posner; Famed judge earns benchslap just in time for retirement.”

Programming note: In connection with my oral argument tomorrow morning before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (additional details, including the appellate briefs I filed on my client’s behalf, can be accessed here), I will be commuting to New York City this afternoon. As a result, additional posts will not appear here until tonight. In the interim, as always while I am traveling, additional appellate-related retweets are likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

There’s still time to sign-up to attend the Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit in Long Beach, Calif. from Nov. 2-5, 2017: If you are an appellate lawyer based in southern California or anywhere in the western United States, and you simply haven’t been able to decide whether to attend this year’s AJEI Summit in Long Beach, I am pleased to inform you that there is still time to sign-up to attend. Online registration can be accessed via this link (scroll down).

I attended my first AJEI Summit in Dallas in November 2014. Then in November 2015, I attended the AJEI Summit in Washington, DC. Last year, the AJEI Summit decided to do me a favor and take place just down the road from me in Philadelphia, Pa., to standing-room-only crowds of attendees. And now, to make up for it, the 2017 AJEI Summit is taking place in Long Beach, Calif., a continent away, but I am still attending and will be serving as the moderator of a session titled “Courts in the Age of ‘New Media'” with three wonderful panelists. You can access the complete program for this four-day event at this link.

I have worked as an appellate attorney in private practice for more than 25 years now, and it took me over 20 years to discover what wonderful appellate-related CLE programming the AJEI Summit delivers each and every year. Indeed, beginning in 2016 and continuing this year, I signed-on to be a part of the AJEI Summit’s Education committee, tasked with planning and delivering the best possible appellate-related CLE programming at each year’s event.

When I was attending the November 2015 AJEI Summit in Washington, DC, an attendee I had never met before came up to say hello. He told me he learned of the event via my blog, and that even though he was an in-house attorney focusing mostly on real estate law, he found the programming to be so interesting and worthwhile. Last November, I saw him again in Philadelphia. Whether he will travel cross-country for the 2017 Summit in Long Beach remains to be seen, but I certainly will be, and I hope you too can attend and will learn for yourself what a worthwhile and wonderful event the annual AJEI Summit happens to be.

“Judging A Book: Pryor Reviews ‘Scalia Speaks.'” Eleventh Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. has this book review at Law360.com.

“The National-Security-Law Expert Who Blocked Trump’s Travel Ban: The former federal prosecutor and deputy counsel to the Department of Homeland Security writes that the prohibition violates the Constitution.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“First major abortion battle of Trump era could be headed for Supreme Court”: Joan Biskupic of CNN.com has this news analysis.

“Supreme Court to decide when state voter purges cross the line”: Tony Pugh of McClatchy DC has this report.

“State Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Take Case Involving Abusive Language”: Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant has an article that begins, “In a case that implicates free speech, fighting words and the coarsening of public discourse, state prosecutors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a 25-day jail term on a Rockville woman convicted of upsetting public order by flinging disgustingly vile insults at a grocery store manager.”

“Justin Trudeau should name an Indigenous justice to the Supreme Court”: The Toronto Star has posted this editorial online.

“After Supreme Court detour, Apple v. Samsung goes to a fourth jury trial; Apple wields design as a weapon, a strategy that has led to judicial paralysis”: Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has this report.

“Is Oral Argument Dying in the Circuits?” Tessa L. Dysart has this post at the “Appellate Advocacy Blog.”

“Dismissal of $472 million verdict v. J&J is disaster for talc plaintiffs”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

In the November 2017 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Speech, religion and bias all weighed in Masterpiece Cakeshop case.”

And Lorelei Laird has an article headlined “Native Hawaiians wage an ongoing battle to organize into a sovereign nation.”

“DOJ says it’s settled ‘contraception mandate’ cases; Trump’s move to broaden exemption paved way for resolution”: Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has this report.

And Ema O’Connor and Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News report that “The Trump Administration Just Settled More Than A Dozen Lawsuits Over Obama’s Contraception Mandate.”

“A Vision of Our Post-Roe Future: The government’s ban on abortions for undocumented minors is a preview of an America with one more conservative Supreme Court justice.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Notebook: Justices’ security focus of lawsuit.” Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press have this report.

“A Gay Couple Just Asked The Supreme Court To Rule Against A Christian Baker”: Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News has this report.

You can view here and here the Briefs for Respondents filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Second Circuit holds that a notice of appeal can sometimes substitute for a petition for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1292(b): You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

Ninth Circuit decides whether the “right of taking fish” includes whales and seals under the Treaty of Olympia: Today’s ruling answers “yes,” even while recognizing that now “scientists tell us sea mammals are not fish.”

Ninth Circuit rejects First Amendment challenge to Montana’s limits on the amount of money individuals, political action committees, and political parties may contribute to candidates for state elective office: You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversing a district court’s ruling to the contrary, at this link.

Update: At his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen discusses the ruling in a post titled “In Major Victory in Case with National Significance, Ninth Circuit on 2-1 Vote Upholds Montana Contribution Limits; Judge Bea Would Appear to Hold *All* Limits Unconstitutional.”

Specific personal jurisdiction and the purposeful availment test in the Ninth Circuit: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this ruling today.

“A Conversation with Justice Elena Kagan, Oct. 16, 2017, Chicago-Kent College of Law”: The Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Institute of Technology has posted the video of this recent event on YouTube at this link.

“Supreme court to hear challenge to Northern Ireland abortion law; Amnesty International among organisations and individuals bringing case on human rights grounds”: Henry McDonald of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“The Single Most Unremarked Win of the Trump Era: Kristen Clarke of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on the federal judiciary.” Slate recently posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

“Tuesday hearing may hold clues to whether Supreme Court thinks school-funding case closed”: Neal Morton of The Seattle Times has this report.

“‘Front Row Kids’ and values have taken over our courts:The problem is not just that Back Row America’s values won’t be considered — it’s that the Supreme Court may not even realize it’s ignoring them.” Law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds has this essay online at USA Today.