“A Conversation with Justice Breyer and a Panel Discussion on the First Amendment and Hate Speech”: The National Constitution Center has posted this video online.

“Federal Appeals Court Dismisses ATA’s New York Thruway Lawsuit”: Eric Miller of Transport Topics has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed in 2013 by American Trucking Associations alleging that the New York State Thruway Authority did not have the right to use toll revenues collected from commercial truckers to support the state’s canal system.”

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

“Judge Stephen Reinhardt dies; weighed in on Proposition 8, travel ban”: Laura Jarrett and Darran Simon of CNN have this report.

“Stephen Reinhardt, ‘liberal lion’ of the 9th Circuit, dies at 87”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And George Avalos of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Federal judge Stephen Reinhardt dies.”

“A Prominent Liberal Judge From The 9th Circuit Court Has Died At 87; Judge Stephen Reinhardt was appointed to the appeals court in 1980”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

Way back when in February 2004, I published this 20 questions for the appellate judge interview with Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

“No, Justice Stevens, We Don’t Need to Repeal the Second Amendment: The Constitution is simply not an obstacle to effective gun regulation; Politicians are.” Elizabeth Wydra has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Online at CNN, Robert A. Levy has an essay titled “Why the Stevens gun manifesto is beyond irresponsible.”

Online at Fox News, Robert Charles has an essay titled “If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls.”

And at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog, Damon Root has a post titled “Justice John Paul Stevens Is Wrong About the Second Amendment, Again; The retired justice wants to claw back parts of the Bill of Rights.”

“Trump adviser ties Amazon criticism to U.S. Supreme Court case”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Lindsay Lohan, ‘Mob Wives’ star lose bids to sue Grand Theft Auto V makers over allegedly using their likenesses”: Kenneth Lovett of The New York Daily News has this report.

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Lindsay Lohan loses ‘Grand Theft Auto’ appeal.”

Chris Dolmetsch of Bloomberg News reports that “Lindsay Lohan’s Pursuit of ‘Grand Theft Auto’ Lawsuit Stalls.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Appeals Court: Lindsay Lohan ‘Not Recognizable’ in ‘Grand Theft Auto’; Her Lawsuit Fails; New York State’s highest court says that video game avatars can violate one’s privacy rights but it has to be more than a generic artistic depiction.”

You can access today’s rulings of the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — in these two related cases here and here.

“His Clients Weren’t Complaining. But the Judge Said This Lawyer Worked Too Hard.” Richard A. Oppel Jr. of The New York Times has this report.

“Maryland appeals court upholds overturning of ‘Serial’ subject Adnan Syed’s murder conviction”: Justin Fenton and Kevin Rector of The Baltimore Sun have this report.

Sonia Rao of The Washington Post reports that “Adnan Syed of ‘Serial’ will get a new trial, Maryland court affirms.”

Liam Stack of The New York Times reports that “Adnan Syed of ‘Serial’ Is Granted a New Trial.”

Talal Ansari of BuzzFeed News reports that “An Appeals Court Has Ruled Adnan Syed From ‘Serial’ Should Get A New Trial.”

And at the “Maryland Appellate Blog,” Steve Klepper has a post titled “Adnan Syed entitled to new trial, Court of Special Appeals affirms. What’s next?”

You can access today’s ruling of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland at this link.

“If Trump causes a constitutional crisis, will Roberts court show the courage of John Marshall?” Law professor Joel Richard Paul has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Slippery gerrymanders: The Supreme Court struggles with partisan redistricting; The justices dislike gerrymandering but do not know what to do about it.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Michael Screnock’s work defending Didion, dairy producers draws fire from liberal, conservation groups”: Molly Beck has this front page article in today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal.

And Patrick Marley and Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report that “Joe Biden backs Dallet as Supreme Court candidates bicker over role of special interests.”

“Baseball Improved Fan Safety, but in Court, It’s Teams That Are Protected”: Wallace Matthews has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“How Judges Know What They Know”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Why A Judicial Race In Wisconsin Is A Big Deal For Midterms”: Molly Hensley-Clancy of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“After the Maryland Redistricting Argument at the Supreme Court, Will the Effort to Rein In Partisan Gerrymandering End with a Whimper?” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “If an ‘extreme’ gerrymander is invalid, what then?“

“Supreme Court, Again Weighing Map Warped by Politics, Shows No Consensus”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Even on second look, Supreme Court seems stumped on gerrymandering issue.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices troubled by partisan gerrymandering, but unsure how to control it.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court criticizes partisan election maps, but a fix proves elusive.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Consensus Eludes Justices in Gerrymandering Case; Maryland Republicans say Democrats violated rights in redrawing congressional districts.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court grapples with Maryland’s partisan gerrymander challenge.”

John Fritze of The Baltimore Sun reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with how political is too political in Maryland redistricting case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices struggle with partisan redistricting again.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court finds solution elusive in pivotal electoral map case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Grapples With Partisan-Gerrymandering Lawsuits.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court not finding consensus on gerrymandering.”

Steven Shepard of Politico reports that “Justices cast doubt on partisan redistricting; But it was unclear after oral arguments in a key case whether there are five votes to strike it down.”

Online at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a post titled “The Supreme Court Seems Befuddled, Again, on Gerrymandering.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Undecided Court: The justices appears no closer to solving partisan gerrymandering after yet another oral argument.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Frustration Seems To Reign As Justices Hear Case Challenging Extreme Gerrymandering.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333.

“FX Prevails in ‘Feud’ Defamation Suit Filed by Olivia de Havilland”: Sopan Deb of The New York Times has this report.

Andrew Dalton of The Associated Press reports that “Court tosses Olivia de Havilland lawsuit against FX’s Feud.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Olivia de Havilland’s ‘Feud’ lawsuit against FX Networks thrown out.”

Edvard Pettersson of Bloomberg News reports that “FX Networks Defeats Olivia De Havilland Lawsuit Over ‘Feud’ Biopic.”

Gene Maddaus of Variety reports that “Olivia de Havilland’s ‘Feud’ Suit Tossed by Appeals Court.”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Ashley Cullins has a post titled “FX Wins Appellate Court ‘Feud’ With Olivia de Havilland; A California appeals court has reversed de Havilland’s early court win.”

And Nathan Solis of Courthouse News Service reports that “Appeals Court Tosses Olivia De Havilland’s Suit Over ‘Feud.’”

You can access Monday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District at this link.

“Supreme Judicial Bullshit”: Law professor Adam J. Kolber has this article forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law.” Law professor Randy E. Barnett and Evan Bernick have posted this article on SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.” In fifteen minutes from now, at 3:30 p.m. eastern time and 12:30 p.m. pacific time, the Library Foundation of Los Angeles will host a discussion between Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard L. Hasen about Hasen’s new book. You can view the event live, online on YouTube via this link.

“Supreme Court Committee Seeks Public Comment on Draft Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion; Draft opinion provides guidance to judges for giving educational presentations to specialty bar associations”: The Judicial Council of California’s Public Affairs office issued this news release today. The draft formal opinion can be accessed here.

“The Supreme Court Proves It Didn’t Mean What It Said in King v. Burwell; In a new decision, the justices have embraced the same logic they rejected in King“: Dan McLaughlin has this essay online at National Review.

“Ohio Supreme Court moves to adopt ‘Bill O’Neill Rule'”: Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch has an article that begins, “Perhaps it’ll be known as the Bill O’Neill Rule. The Ohio Supreme Court is moving to change rules to require a judge who announces a run for partisan elective office to immediately resign from the bench.”

“An Undying Mystery: Part 1; In 1944, George Stinney was young, black and sentenced to die.” On Sunday, The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina began a four-part series about this case written by Deanna Pan and Jennifer Berry Hawes. Part one’s headline is the title to this post, and you can access it here.

Part two is headlined “Young lawyer dusts off old evidence to cast doubt on George Stinney’s conviction.”

Part three is headlined “Quest to clear George Stinney’s name draws new scrutiny to another man.”

And part four is headlined “New details emerge about an alternate suspect in Alcolu girls’ murders.”

“Twitter and the #So-CalledJudge”: Law professor Elizabeth Thornburg has this article in the current issue of the SMU Law Review.

“The Interpretive Dance”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Why the Insular Cases Must Become the Next Plessy”: Neil Weare has this post at the Harvard Law Review Blog.

“Supreme Court reverses Third Circuit appealability ruling”: Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog.”

“The Justice of Contradictions: Legal scholar Richard Hasen offered his analysis of Justice Scalia’s time on the Supreme Court.” C-SPAN’s Book TV has posted at this link the video of this event, which also featured Adam Liptak of The New York Times and law professor Susan Low Bloch.

“Trump says Second Amendment won’t be repealed”: Alan Fram of The Associated Press has this report.

“Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs Republican challenge to Maryland electoral map.”

“Scalia’s Legacy Is Stronger Than Ever; Rather than fading since his death, it has only grown”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Some Thoughts on the Hughes Argument and Logical Subsets”: Adam Steinman has this post at his “Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog.”