“Dyer requires that the suit be allowed to proceed through the threshold gates of Heck.” In a per curiam opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit demonstrated that if you’re going to reject the application of Heck v. Humphrey to a pro se prisoner’s section 1983 suit, why not have a little fun with it?

“In reversal, court rules U.S. not on hook for Katrina damage”: Amanda Reilly of Greenwire has an article that begins, “The federal government isn’t liable for Hurricane Katrina flood damage, an appeals court ruled Friday in a major case that’s likely to affect other litigation over flooding tied to natural disasters.”

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

Conflict of interest, anyone? Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press reports that “Court sides with human in copyright fight over monkey selfie.” The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel that decided the case consisted of three humans and zero monkeys.

In other coverage, Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Monkey can’t sue for copyright infringement of selfies, 9th Circuit rules.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Monkey in selfie case has no right to sue for copyright infringement, court says.”

Luis Gomez of The San Diego Union-Tribune has an article headlined “Surprise! Monkeys can’t sue for copyright, not even for ‘monkey selfies.’ Here’s why.”

Sara Randazzo of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Copyright Protection for Monkey Selfie Rejected by U.S. Appeals Court; Animal-rights group sued to win rights, profits for Naruto, a camera-loving Indonesian macaque monkey.”

Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica reports that “Monkey-selfie lawsuit finally ends: Court affirms adorable macaque can’t sue; PETA claimed to be a friend to Naruto, but ‘failed’ at doing so, 9th Circuit finds.”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Ashley Cullins has a post titled “‘Monkey Selfie’ Appellate Ruling Finds Animals Can’t File Copyright Suits.”

And Nicholas Iovino of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Rejects ‘Monkey Selfie’ Copyright Claim.”

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

“Court blocks Trump administration order delaying boost in fuel penalties”: David Shepardson of Reuters has this report.

“Will the Court Stand Up to Donald Trump?” The New York Times has published this editorial.

And The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Trump at the Supreme Court: His travel ban may be unnecessary but it is clearly constitutional.”

“Supreme Court Chief Justice Nominee Richard A. Robinson Promises To Tackle Discrimination In Courts”: Christopher Keating of The Hartford Courant has an article that begins, “Justice Richard A. Robinson told legislators Monday he would deal directly with racial discrimination if he becomes the next chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. If approved by the state House of Representatives and state Senate in the coming weeks, Robinson would become the first African-American chief justice in the state’s history.”

“Woman with dreadlocks says Mobile company wouldn’t hire her, appeals to Supreme Court”: Ivana Hrynkiw of Alabama Media Group has this report.

“Why is Clarence Thomas still on the Supreme Court?” Margery Eagan has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“Judge facing expulsion over sex allegations”: Laurel J. Sweet of The Boston Herald has an article that begins, “The social worker whose sexual relations with a married judge could have him facing a historic expulsion will attend tomorrow’s argument before the state’s highest court for removing Thomas H. Estes Jr. from the bench, the Herald has learned.”

Jim Russell of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Suffolk University to live stream judicial misconduct hearing of Thomas Estes, judge who admitted having sex at Belchertown courthouse.”

And Alanna Durkin Richer of The Associated Press reports that “Judge fights for job after admitting to courthouse affair.”

“Travel ban case is justices’ first dive into Trump policy”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump’s Travel Ban Comes Before Supreme Court in Test of Presidential Power.”

In the May 2018 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Speculation swirls over Supreme Court retirements.”

Lorelei Laird has an article headlined “Appeals court stymies bid to regulate high cost of prison phone calls.”

Gerardo Alvarez has an article headlined “Oregon Supreme Court gets first African-American justice.”

And David L. Hudson Jr. has an article headlined “Lawyers have enhanced duty of confidentiality when engaging in public commentary.”

“States battle in courts while tightening noose on abortion clinics”: Alex Swoyer has this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Times.

“Federal judiciary may create informal harassment complaint system”: Joan Biskupic and Aaron Kessler of CNN have this report.

“GOP plan to impeach 4 Pennsylvania justices remains in limbo”: Mark Scolforo of The Associated Press has this report.

“Rod Rosenstein Makes a Timely Supreme Court Appearance”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court considers power of agency judges and who should appoint them.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “President’s hiring and firing power at issue in Supreme Court case over SEC judges.”

Jess Bravin and Dave Michaels of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Weighs Arguments in Case Involving SEC’s In-House Judges; Several justices concerned that striking down current system could erode political independence of civil service.” And Bravin also has an article headlined “Rosenstein, Taking Break from Mueller Probe, Argues Before Supreme Court; Deputy attorney general defends government’s position in his first case before the high court.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with administrative law judge case.” And Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Rosenstein puts aside Russia probe to argue at Supreme Court.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court divided over challenge to SEC in-house judges.” And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Under fire by Trump, Rosenstein moonlights at U.S. Supreme Court.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “‘Buckets of Money’ Case Tests Power of SEC Judges in Trump Era” and “Rosenstein Makes Rare Argument Before Supreme Court.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Rod Rosenstein gets his day at the Supreme Court.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Rod Rosenstein Has His Day In Court; A low-profile case about criminal sentences gave the deputy attorney general a chance to spend an hour at the Supreme Court — and away from the news cycle.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh as a post titled “A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Rod Rosenstein’s brief respite from a rough-and-tumble world.”

And in commentary, online at The Atlantic, law professor Peter M. Shane has an essay titled “Could This Supreme Court Case Affect Robert Mueller? An upcoming case might show how the justices would react to the special counsel being dismissed.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130

And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17-5639.

“A test of presidential power: Donald Trump’s travel ban heads to the Supreme Court; The president’s defenders say the judiciary should not examine his motives.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Bucking precedent, 9th Circuit opens door to more M&A challenges”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in two new cases that were consolidated for one hour of oral argument. In addition, the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

“OT2017 #22: ‘Cf. Everything.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Dan Epps, via this link.

“The Renegade Sheriffs: A law-enforcement movement that claims to answer only to the Constitution.” Ashley Powers has this article in the April 30, 2018 issue of The New Yorker.