“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.

“Passing the California bar exam shouldn’t be made easier, court says”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday not to lower the passing score on the state’s licensing examination for lawyers.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit displays sophisticated grasp of redaction techniques: You can access a decision containing redactions that the Third Circuit issued today at this link.

“U.S. appeals court rejects Cosby accuser’s bid to revive defamation suit”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.

“Twitter silence from Texas Tweeter Laureate”: Columnist Ken Herman recently had this essay online at The Austin American-Statesman.

“Missouri appeals court tosses out $72 million Johnson & Johnson talcum powder verdict”: Joel Currier has this front page article in today’s edition of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Lisa Gutierrez of The Kansas City Star reports that “Missouri appeals court throws out $72 million award in Johnson & Johnson talcum powder case.”

Margaret Cronin Fisk of Bloomberg News reports that “J&J Wins Reversal of First St. Louis Talc-Cancer Verdict.”

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Johnson & Johnson wins reversal of $72 million verdict over talc cancer risks.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, at this link.

“Why Are Prosecutors Putting Innocent Witnesses in Jail? Across the country, people who committed no crimes are being locked up to compel their testimony in court.” Sarah Stillman has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“The Supreme Court Justices Need Fact-Checkers”: Law professor John Pfaff has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Judges vs. Bureaucrats: Who should defer to whom?” Slate has posted online this jurisprudence essay, consisting of a conversation between former Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner and Senior U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.), moderated by Joel Cohen.

“Feud: Elena and Neil; Why rumors of a Gorsuch-Kagan clash at the Supreme Court are such a bombshell.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Is Trump Violating the Constitution? In Absentia, He Defends Himself in Court.” Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times has this report.

“In North Carolina, Republicans Stung by Court Rulings Aim to Change the Judges”: Trip Gabriel of The New York Times has this report.

“Guantanamo guards seize confidential Sept. 11 terror trial defense files”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“The Unexploded Landmine Buried Deep In The Codes of Conduct Committee’s Otherwise Excellent Opinion On Posner”: Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf (D. Neb.) has this post at the “Simple Justice” blog.

“Justice Gorsuch is Right: Jesner and the Original Meaning of the Alien Tort Statute.” Anthony J. Bellia and Bradford R. Clark have this post today at the “Lawfare” blog.

Proving that law blogging is as cool now as it ever was: The Harvard Law Review now has a blog, conveniently titled “Harvard Law Review Blog.”

“Squat, lift, kick, curl: Justice Ginsburg’s workout is tough and it left me exhausted.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“D.C. Circuit nominee says he worked on White House response to Mueller probe; Katsas also acknowledged he gave advice on travel ban, DACA, voter fraud commission”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.