“Artis v. District of Columbia, part 2: Units of meaning and dictionary definitions.” Neal Goldfarb has this interesting post at his “LAWnLinguistics” blog.

“N.R.A. Logo? No. #MeToo Shirt? Maybe. Justices Weigh Political Apparel at Polls.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justices come armed with ‘what-ifs’ in reviewing ‘speech-free’ polling places.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Supreme Court conundrum: Should the right to vote depend on what you wear?”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Justices Question Minnesota’s Ban on Political Buttons at Polling Stations; State law enacted in 1912 seeks to protect ‘solemnity’ of voting from attire advertising election issues.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court questions state law banning political apparel at ballot box; Liberal justices question where to draw line; conservative justices wonder who gets to decide.”

Maya Rao of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court takes up Minnesota voter apparel case; Lawsuit challenges Minnesota’s restriction on voters wearing political messages to polling places on First Amendment grounds.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “MAGA hat, #MeToo pin? High court weighs voter clothing law.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report headlined “Too political to wear? Supreme Court debates voter apparel law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Seems Divided on Political-Apparel Bans at Polls.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Justices disturbed with law limiting apparel at voting booths, but struggle with solution.”

Bill Mears of FoxNews.com reports that “Supreme Court session on political buttons gets testy.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Examines Strict Laws For Inside Polling Places.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435.

“Must Tech Firms Provide Data Held Abroad? Justices Struggle to Apply 1986 Law.” Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima reports that “Supreme Court grapples with access to globalized data in U.S. investigations.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sounds wary of Microsoft’s shield for emails stored abroad.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Nicole Hong have an article headlined “High Court Grapples With Case of Emails Stored Abroad; Justices raise concerns that Microsoft’s resistance to court orders for data stored overseas would hurt U.S. law enforcement.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court looks to Congress to settle U.S.-Microsoft data dispute.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs government’s reach of records kept on foreign servers; Case before justices involves government’s demand to see emails of Microsoft customer.”

Tim Johnson of McClatchy DC reports that “Tech sector frets it could face fallout if Microsoft case erodes privacy protections.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices look at how older law applies to internet cloud.”

Lawrence Hurley and Dustin Volz of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with Microsoft data privacy fight.”

Bob Van Voris of Bloomberg News reports that “Some Supreme Court Justices Back Government in Email Fight With Microsoft.”

And Josh Gerstein and Ashley Gold of Politico report that “Justices struggle with U.S. demands for overseas data.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2.

“Opinion analysis: Sharply divided court narrowly approves Congress’ power to resolve pending litigation.” Ronald Mann has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants, Supreme Court Rules”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court throws out ruling that said detained immigrants deserve bond hearings.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court strengthens government’s power to jail immigrants who face deportation.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court allows indefinite immigrant detentions.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Overturns Rule Ensuring Noncitizen Bail Hearings; Conservative justices send case back to lower court to consider constitutionality of indefinite detention.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Illegal immigrants have no automatic right to freedom, Supreme Court rules.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court nixes periodic hearings for detained immigrants.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court curbs rights of immigrants awaiting deportation.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Detained Immigrants on Bond Hearings.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court narrowly rules against non-citizens facing deportation.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Rules That Detained Would-Be Immigrants Have No Right To Bail Hearings Under Federal Law.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204, at this link.

“Supreme Court sympathetic to Florida man arrested by city officials he criticized”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court defends free speech of Florida agitator Fane Lozman in his fight against city.”

Alex Daugherty of The Miami Herald reports that “U.S. chief justice calls video of South Florida man’s arrest ‘pretty chilling.’”

And Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “In free speech case, justices troubled by Fla. man’s arrest.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, No. 17-21.

“The Cruelty of Executing the Sick and Elderly: Two controversial cases in Alabama reveal a disturbing trend in the death penalty in America.” Matt Ford of The Atlantic has this report.

“We All Must Live With Mitch McConnell’s Proudest Moment”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “Remember when the Senate confirmed Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, the veteran federal appeals court judge, to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly two years ago this month?”

“Supreme Court to Consider Whether Alabama Can Execute Inmate With Dementia; Vernon Madison, convicted of the 1985 murder of a Mobile police officer, now has no memory of the crime”: Jess Bravin has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Gun Lake Tribe wins showdown at U.S. Supreme Court”: Jim Harger of MLive Media Group has this report.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Congress properly ended Michigan casino suit.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court Backs Congressional Power to Affect Lawsuits; Chief Justice Roberts, Gorsuch dissent in the decision.”

And Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service reports that “Divided High Court Backs Act of Congress to Quash Suits.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Patchak v Zinke, No. 16-498, at this link.

“Rod Rosenstein Renews the Call to Find a Federal Prosecutor’s Killer”: Jeffrey Toobin recently had this post online at The New Yorker.

“GOP asks Supreme Court to block new Pennsylvania congressional maps”: Ariane de Vogue and Eric Bradner of CNN.com have this report.

“Barclays asks SCOTUS to clarify post-Halliburton rules for securities class actions”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“U.S. top court to mull rules on what voters can wear to polls”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Senate confirms Elizabeth Branch, Trump’s 14th circuit court judge”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Senate Confirms Former Homeland Security Counsel for 11th Circuit.”.

You can access the official roll call tally of the U.S. Senate‘s vote to confirm Elizabeth L. Branch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by a vote of 73-to-23 at this link.

“Resolving the Paradox: How marriage equality paved the way for anti-gay employment discrimination to be ruled illegal.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Ninth Circuit Committee Begins Workplace Environment Review”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today.

“Lessons for Donald Trump in the Supreme Court’s DACA Order”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Free Speech vs. Freedom From Intimidation: The Supreme Court is set to reconsider campaigning at the ballot box; Justice Scalia got it right the first time.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Reviewing Antitrust Claims Against Amex”: Katherine Fan has this post at “The Points Guy” blog.

Update: And Reddit’s Churning page contains a discussion titled “Churning at SCOTUS: transcript of Supreme Court argument in Amex anti-steering rules case.”

“When the Supreme Court Doesn’t Care About Facts: The conservative justices seem prepared to decide Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, a case that could harm public sector unions, without so much as a factual record.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online with The Atlantic.

“Key Voice Is Silent in Supreme Court Case on Unions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “As Supreme Court positions harden on union case, likely deciding justice is silent.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court hears major challenge to government unions, with Gorsuch holding key vote.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Case on Public-Sector Union Fees; An Illinois state worker is objecting to payroll deductions for a union collective-bargaining fee.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Public employee union fees raise ire at Supreme Court, but key justice remains silent on direction.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court justices hear challenge to mandatory union fees, appear split.”

Katherine Skiba of The Chicago Tribune reports that “Rauner heads to U.S. Supreme Court for union case, calls it battle against ‘conflicts of interest, corruption.’”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Gorsuch silent as divided Supreme Court spars over unions.”

Lawrence Hurley and Robert Iafolla of Reuters report that “Conservative Supreme Court justices take aim at union fees.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clash Over Mandatory Union Fees.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Gorsuch silent as court sharply divided on union fees.”

Josh Gerstein and Mel Leonor of Politico report that “Gorsuch mum as Supreme Court rehears public employee union fight; At arguments, Kennedy takes strikingly hostile tone towards unions.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Key Justice In Today’s High-Profile Arguments Over Public Sector Union Fees Was Silent.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, No.16-1466.

“Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules”: Alan Feuer and Benjamin Weiser of The New York Times have this report.

Matt Zapotosky of The Washington Post reports that “Employers can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, court says, dealing loss to Trump administration.”

Nicole Hong of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Backs Gay Employees’ Right to Sue; Ruling finds federal civil-rights law covers sexual orientation in an issue has split the nation’s circuits.”

John Riley of Newsday reports that “Law banning sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, panel rules; The case involved Donald Zarda, a now-deceased gay skydiving instructor fired in 2010 by Altitude Express in Calverton.”

Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: US anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation.”

Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court says Title VII covers discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Erik Larson, Bob Van Voris, Josh Eidelson, and Jeff Green of Bloomberg News report that “Gay Workers Get Win Over Trump With U.S. Anti-Bias Ruling.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN has a report headlined “Court: Civil Rights Law protects claims of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Federal Court Just Ruled For Gay Rights In A Major Discrimination Case; The decision is a loss for the Justice Department, which argued that a 1964 civil rights law doesn’t protect gay workers.”

And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post titled “2nd Circuit demolishes key DOJ argument against workplace protection for gays.”

You can access today’s 163-page en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court Turns Down Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case”: Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear of The New York Times have this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court declines to enter controversy over ‘dreamers,’ rejects Trump administration’s request to review lower court rulings.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court extends relief for ‘Dreamers,’ refuses to rule now on Trump immigration plan.”

Richard Wolf and Alan Gomez of USA Today report that “Supreme Court snubs Trump, keeps DACA immigration program in place for now.”

Brent Kendall and Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Deals Setback to Trump Immigration Policy on ‘Dreamers’; Justices won’t take up quick appeal of ruling that has blocked end of Obama program for young undocumented immigrants.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “DACA program still active after Supreme Court declines to speed appeal; Dreamers can apply for renewal, but no new applications allowed.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court declines to decide fate of ‘Dreamers’ just yet.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court rejects Trump over ‘Dreamers’ immigrants.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Rebuffs Trump, Won’t Hear Immigration Appeal.”

And Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan of CNN report that “Supreme Court won’t hear Trump bid to end DACA program.”

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

“Supreme Court Grills Both Sides in States’ Challenge of American Express; American Express Co.’s card rules for merchants prompted strong reactions at the Supreme Court Monday”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court liberals skeptical of American Express merchant fees.”

And David McLaughlin of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Amex Rules in Antitrust Enforcement Test.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454.

“Supreme Court considers free speech vs. retaliatory arrests”: Curt Anderson of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court to Hear Microsoft Case on Emails, Customer Data Stored Overseas; U.S. law enforcement seeks access to information stored on foreign servers when investigating crimes”: Brent Kendall and Nicole Hong of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Tech Takes On Trump as Supreme Court Looks at Data Stored Abroad.”

Agence France-Presse reports that “Microsoft data warrant case in top US court has global implications.”

Julia Fioretti of Reuters reports that “Europe seeks power to seize overseas data in challenge to tech giants.”

Kate Conger of Gizmodo reports that “Microsoft’s Big Email Privacy Case Heads to the Supreme Court Tomorrow.”

At the “Lawfare” blog, Matthew Kahn has a post titled “Microsoft-Ireland Oral Argument Preview: Will the Supreme Court Stave Off Data Localization?”

And in commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Microsoft’s Legal Cloud Cover: Must a company comply with a warrant on records stored abroad?”

And online at The New York Times, Craig A. Newman has an essay titled “Can the United States Search Data Overseas?”

“OT2017 #15: ‘Respected By All Sides.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Dan Epps, via this link.

“Supreme Court to hear arguments in global digital privacy case”: Mark Scott and Ashley Gold of Politico have this report.

“The Gun Control Movement’s Silent Ally: The Supreme Court; The justices haven’t taken a Second Amendment case in almost a decade, to the benefit of states — like Florida — that want to tighten gun laws.” Matt Ford of The Atlantic has this report.

Programming note: I am spending this upcoming week somewhere warmer than the Philadelphia area in the final throes of winter. As a result, posts will be appearing here less frequently during the week ahead. As always while I am traveling, appellate-related retweets are likely to appear more often on this blog’s Twitter feed.

Lots of fun activities are on the agenda for this week, including a Baltimore Orioles spring training game midweek and a visit to see big cats earlier today.

I knew that my week away was off to an auspicious start when the passenger in the window seat of my row on my flight out-of-town turned out to be one of the housemates from MTV’s “Floribama Shore.” Thus far, I haven’t knowingly crossed paths during my trip with any avid fans of “How Appealing,” although I did note that law professor Noah Feldman was speaking here the day before I arrived.

“How the Supreme Court Could Reshape Employment Law: The conservative justices’ interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act could cripple employee challenges to wage, hour, working-conditions, and job-status disputes.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“A Florida provocateur has his day before the Supreme Court — again”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Florida gadfly bucks local government and returns to Supreme Court for second 15 minutes of fame.”

“Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Public-Sector Unions; Illinois state worker challenges unions’ ability to collect fees from unwilling employees”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Ed Pilkington of The Guardian (UK) reports that “Fears grow as rightwing billionaires battle to erode US union rights; Supreme court hears arguments in case that could strip unions of major source of income — amid worries that the unions will lose.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court to hear case on unions, non-member financial requirements.”

Andrew Hanna and Caitlin Emma of Politico report that “Supreme Court could cripple public unions in run-up to 2018 midterms; The plaintiff challenges the fees that government unions collect from nonmembers to cover collective bargaining costs.”

And Rachel M. Cohen of The Intercept reports that “The Right is Trying to Take Down Public Sector Unions. It May Bring Much More Down With It.”

“Supreme Court case centers on law enforcement access to data held overseas”: Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs Microsoft overseas data fight.”

And Selena Larson of CNN reports that “Supreme Court to hear high-stakes Microsoft case testing email privacy.”