“No Time to Pretend: The courts and the press are putting themselves at risk by treating Donald Trump like a normal president.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“UC vs. Harvard: Round 2 in CRISPR fight; UC argues its appeal of U.S. Patent Office’s ruling on gene editing.” Lisa M. Krieger of The San Jose Mercury News has this report.

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “U.S. appellate judges seem divided on gene editing patents decision.”

Sharon Begley of STAT has a report headlined “It’s ‘going to be tough’: UC Berkeley struggles to find sympathetic court in CRISPR patent appeal.”

Jon Cohen of Science magazine reports that “Federal appeals court hears CRISPR patent dispute.”

And earlier, Susan Decker and Michelle Cortez of Bloomberg News previewed the oral argument in an article headlined “This Court Battle Will Decide Who Will Make a Fortune From Gene-Editing Tech.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via this link (9.80 MB mp3 audio file).

“Meet John Tinker: a Missourian whose Supreme Court case helped pave the way for today’s student marches.” Elza Goodlow of The Columbia Missourian has this report.

Noting the return of First Circuit Judge Michael Boudin: Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this published opinion, which according to Westlaw is the first published opinion written by Judge Boudin since December 2012.

The time has come to admit that this blog failed in its intermittent efforts to determine what Judge Boudin has been up to (other than accepting senior status) since December 2012. If he had been ill, it is great to see that he is back at work. Or perhaps he traveled the world or walked across the United States numerous times. In any event, it is worth noting that he is back to deciding cases as a federal appellate judge. (Thanks to the longtime “How Appealing” reader who drew today’s ruling to my attention.)

“How the Supreme Court Could Rewrite the Rules for DNA Searches; The arrest of the alleged Golden State Killer and a case currently before the court both raise questions about Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age”: Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“There is no excuse for keeping cameras out of the U.S. Supreme Court”: Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this essay online at The Sacramento Bee.

“Judge Permits Government to Appeal DACA Lawsuit”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“Judges wrestle over whether Texas mistreats foster kids so badly, it tramples their rights”: Robert T. Garrett of The Dallas Morning News has this report on a case argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

You can access the oral argument audio via this link.

“Lawyers: Scan suggests alleged 9/11 plotter suffered head injury in CIA custody.” Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“‘There’s No Reason to Apologize’ for Muslim Ban Remarks, Trump Says”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Judge Sentelle . . . Everywhere.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Supreme Court to decide in row over gay marriage cake; Christian bakery owners seek to overturn ruling that they breached equality laws”: Jane Croft of Financial Times has an article (subscription required) that begins, “The UK’s highest court will convene in Belfast this week to make a landmark decision in a case involving a bakery in Northern Ireland that refused to ice a cake with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage.'”

“Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Death Penalty and Class Actions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to weigh execution method that could cause inmate excruciating death.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide on reining in class-action deals that only pay lawyers and their favored institutions.”

And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Will Take a Closer Look at Class Actions; Appeals in two cases could curb remedies for alleged small harms to big groups.”

“Justice Sotomayor Will Have Shoulder Replaced After Fracture”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor to undergo shoulder surgery following fall.”

The U.S. Supreme Court‘s Public Information Office issued this news release today.

“On presidents v. special counsels, Justice Scalia got it right long ago”: Ilan Wurman has this essay online at The Hill.

“Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg a judicial ‘rock star’? This new documentary makes a strong case.” Michael O’Sullivan of The Washington Post has this movie review (3 stars).

“No vacancy (yet): Liberals, conservatives prepare to battle for control of Supreme Court.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Pa. gerrymandering’s surprise co-conspirators: Democrats.” Jonathan Lai and Holly Otterbein of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.

“Proposed Amicus Brief Rule Change Has No Friends”: Melissa Heelan Stanzione of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“September and/or January 25th (or how the Solicitor General learned to stop worrying and love the President’s disavowal of anti-Muslim animus)”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Death row inmate to challenge lethal injection in Supreme Court, says he could choke on own blood”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to hear appeal of Missouri death row inmate.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court to hear Missouri murderer’s lethal injection case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Death-Row Inmate With Rare Disease Gets U.S. High Court Review.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court takes up death penalty case over ‘suffering’ claim.”

And Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court to Weigh Gas Execution for Killer With Blood Disorder.”

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear Google privacy settlement dispute”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Google Privacy Settlement Gets Scrutiny From U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Supreme Court Might Reconsider MLB’s Antitrust Exemption”: Nathaniel Grow has this post at Fangraphs.

“OT2017 #23: ‘After Dark.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Dan Epps, via this link.

“#GorsuchStyle Garners a Gusher of Groans. But Is His Writing Really That Bad?” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

The piece discusses, among other things, Nina Varsava‘s forthcoming article titled “Elements of Judicial Style: A Quantitative Guide to Neil Gorsuch’s Opinion Writing.”

This new installment of Liptak’s column gives rise to the following mystery. He writes, “[Ms. Varsava’s] study, which will appear in the New York University Law Review’s online supplement, gave Justice Gorsuch high marks.” However, the SSRN page for the article in question states that it will appear in the “New York Law Review Online, Vol. 93, 2018, Forthcoming.” Both the NYU School of Law and the New York Law School have law reviews, but the exact title of neither of those (see here and here) is the “New York Law Review.”

Should a solution to this mystery emerge, I will note it in an update to this post. [Update: The mention of “Vol. 93” in the SSRN posting of the article itself provides a very strong indication that the article will be appearing online at the NYU Law Review, as the other publication has a way to go before reaching its 93rd volume.]

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in three new cases, including this guy’s.

“Supreme Court president pleads with Netanyahu not to endanger democracy; The Israeli public believes if the Supreme Court is denied the capacity to strike down laws enacted by the Knesset, there will be no checks on the government and it will have unlimited power”: Gil Hoffman of The Jerusalem Post has this report.

“Texas’ Voter ID Law Does Not Discriminate and Can Stand, Appeals Panel Rules”: Manny Fernandez of The New York Times has this report.

Jonathan Tilove of The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Federal appeals court upholds Texas voter ID law.”

Jeremy Wallace of The Houston Chronicle reports that “5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals OK’s Texas voter ID law.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Federal appeals court restores Texas voter-ID law.”

Paul J. Weber of The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds Texas’ law in another big voter ID ruling.”

Jon Herskovitz of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court allows Texas to implement voter ID law.”

Laurel Brubaker Calkins of Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Voter ID Law Survives Appeals Court After State Tweaks.”

Nicole Chavez of CNN reports that “Texas voter ID law can go into effect, appeals court panel rules.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico has a blog post titled “Appeals court overturns ruling against revised Texas voter ID law.”

Alexa Ura of The Texas Tribune reports that “Federal appellate court upholds embattled Texas voter ID law.”

And Cameron Langford of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Voter ID Law.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in which each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately, at this link.

“Trump’s travel-ban comments ‘crystal-clear’? Likely depends on the beholder.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“Immigration, gay rights, politics, abortion, taxes, technology: Crunch time at the Supreme Court.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Supreme Court sports-betting ruling to have limited Nevada impact”: Richard N. Velotta and Todd Prince have this front page article in today’s edition of The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“Hennepin County attorney joins wife in arguing in front of U.S. Supreme Court; Dan Rogan appeared before the high court in February, two years after wife Kate Menendez did so”: Trevor Squire of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has an article that begins, “As law students at New York University, Dan Rogan and Kate Menendez would take walks around Greenwich Village and Central Park to decompress from the strain of their studies. Like many of their classmates and colleagues, they dreamed of one day arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, a goal to which many attorneys aspire but few achieve.”

“Please Stay, Justice Kennedy. America Needs You.” This editorial will appear in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Travel Ban 3.0 and Rinsing Off Religious Animus for SCOTUS: Unpacking the arguments in the marquee case of this term.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

“Stare Scalia: Republican senators’ obsession with Antonin Scalia is leading them to make sloppy mistakes.” Law professor Jed Shugerman has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.