“Multiple Circuits Let Dead Judges Vote in Cases”: Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg Law has this report in which I am quoted.

“The Supreme Court Is Making History — With Its Snail’s Pace; Why are the justices hearing fewer cases and taking longer to decide them?” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“Washington argues salmon case in U.S. Supreme Court”: Rhytha Zahid Hejaze of Medill News Service has this report.

For whatever reason, freely accessible news coverage previewing the oral argument greatly exceeded freely accessible news coverage of the oral argument.

For example, Lynda V. Mapes of The Seattle Times previewed the oral argument in an article headlined “Supreme Court showdown: Washington’s attorney general vs. tribes over salmon habitat; State Attorney General Bob Ferguson goes up against the tribes in the Supreme Court Wednesday, seeking to overturn multiple court rulings calling on the state to fix culverts that block salmon habitat.”

Amanda Reilly of Greenwire reported that “Highways, salmon habitat collide in tribal treaty case.”

And online at The Conversation, law professor Monte Mills had a post titled “Supreme Court case tests weight of old Native American treaties in 21st century.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Washington v. United States, No. 17-269.

Circuit Judge James C. Ho issues his first opinion: In the form of a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

Lest anyone assume that Trump appellate appointees will march in lockstep on cherished issues such as campaign finance disclosure, the order denying en banc rehearing reveals that the other recent Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit voted against rehearing en banc in the case.

Update: At his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “En Banc 5th Circuit, on a Vote of 12-2, with One of Trump’s Appointees Issuing a Blistering Dissent, Denies Rehearing to Consider Challenge to Austin’s $350 Contribution Limit.”

“Federal appeals court upholds conviction of Russian Taliban fighter”: Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch has an article that begins, “A divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a Richmond federal judge and ruled a Russian national captured on the battlefield and tried as a criminal here was not entitled to status as a prisoner of war.”

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

“Wilson Sonsini Partner Talks About Other Kozinski Clerks ‘Waiting, Dying’ to Testify in Aborted Investigation”: Ross Todd of The Recorder recently had this report.

And yesterday, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued this related order.

“Man convicted of bombing judge at Mountain Brook home asks Supreme Court to halt execution”: Ivana Hrynkiw of Alabama Media Group has this report.

Earlier, Kent Faulk has a front page article headlined “Jeff Sessions: It’s OK with feds if Alabama executes judge’s killer” in today’s edition of The Birmingham News. Faulk also has related articles headlined “‘Why my dad?’ Judge recalls father’s legacy as bomber’s execution nears” and “Lawyer to Alabama governor: Judge killed by bomb would oppose death penalty.”

Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this ruling upholding Alabama’s ability to carry out its death sentence in this case.

And Kim Chandler of The Associated Press has a related article headlined “Aging death row: Is executing old or infirm inmates cruel?“

“Thousands of immigrants could benefit from Supreme Court ruling, lawyers say”: Maria Sacchetti of The Washington Post has this report.

“An Interview with Richard L. Hasen: In his new book, The Justice of Contradictions, the attorney dissects Antonin Scalia’s complex legacy.” Kenneth Jost has this interview online at the Washington Independent Review of Books.

Attorney who’s a part of #AppellateTwitter has her wedding featured on the front page of today’s edition of The Birmingham News: The article written by Greg Garrison is headlined “Former Miss America and new wife ‘felt so blessed,’” and it begins, “When Deidre Downs was crowned Miss America more than a decade ago, the idea of legalized gay marriage and Miss America later marrying her same-sex partner in Alabama would have been an unimaginable future.”

Earlier, Garrison had a related article headlined “Former Miss America Deidre Downs marries girlfriend at Birmingham Museum of Art.”

And People magazine has exclusive coverage in an article headlined “Former Miss America Winner Deidre Downs Gunn Marries Girlfriend in Romantic Southern Wedding.”

“NJ Supreme Court: Unconstitutional for taxpayer money to repair, restore churches.” Peggy Wright of The Daily Record of Morristown, New Jersey has this report.

Samantha Marcus of NJ Advance Media reports that “Taxpayer dollars can’t be used to fix up churches, N.J. Supreme Court rules.”

Melanie Anzidei of The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey reports that “State Supreme Court ruling could have ‘detrimental’ effects, experts say.”

And Nick Rummell of Courthouse News Service reports that “NJ Court Cracks Down on State Grants to Churches.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“A taxing case: The Supreme Court seems divided over sales tax on online purchases; Should online retailers have to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence?” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh covered yesterday’s oral argument in a post titled “Argument analysis: Justices are divided on whether to overrule precedents on sales-tax collection by remote sellers.”

“Chief Justice Workman says WV Supreme Court has to restore public trust”: Brad McElhinny of West Virginia’s MetroNews has this report.

“Marquette’s discipline of conservative professor gains national spotlight as it hits high court”: Karen Herzog of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

Melissa Korn of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court to Hear Marquette Professor’s Free-Speech Case; Lawsuit asks to decide if blog post was protected academic debate or internet trolling.”

And Morgan Hughes of Marquette Wire reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court hears McAdams case Thursday.”

“A Milestone for Ruth Bader Ginsburg: For the first time ever, the justice had the honor of assigning a majority opinion for the Supreme Court.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Not All Appeals Are Equal”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Federal appeals court declares Ohio’s effort to defund Planned Parenthood unconstitutional”: Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

Catherine Candisky of The Columbus Dispatch has an article headlined “Appeals court: State defunding of Planned Parenthood unconstitutional.”

Andrew Welsh-Huggins of The Associated Press reports that “Court blocks law that diverts money from Planned Parenthood.”

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court says Ohio cannot block Planned Parenthood funds.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Will Justice Gorsuch Give us a June Surprise?” Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Supreme Court Tosses Out Microsoft Case on Digital Data Abroad”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Drops Case Pitting Justice Department Against Microsoft; Case rendered ‘moot’ after Congress passes legislation giving law enforcement access to overseas data.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Justices duck major data privacy ruling.”

Rachel Lerman of The Seattle Times reports that “Supreme Court dismisses Microsoft data privacy case; A new law that passed Congress last month made the lawsuit moot.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules that Microsoft email privacy dispute is moot.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Drops Microsoft Email Fight With New Law in Place.”

And Aaron Smith and Ariane de Vogue of CNN report that “Supreme Court dismisses major privacy rights case.”

“Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Court’s Liberals to Strike Down Deportation Law”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Divided Supreme Court says part of immigration law used for deportation too vague.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Gorsuch casts key Supreme Court vote to spare California immigrant from deportation.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Gorsuch Sides With Liberal Justices in Immigration Ruling; Supreme Court says federal law requiring deportation for some crimes was unconstitutionally vague.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Neil Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court makes it harder to deport legal immigrants who commit crimes.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court, with Gorsuch’s help, knocks down deportation law as too vague.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court strikes down as vague part of immigration law.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court restricts deportations of immigrant felons.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Tosses Law Used to Deport Convicted Criminals.”

Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan of CNN report that “SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Gorsuch swings against Trump in deportation case.”

Matt Ford of The New Republic reports that “Gorsuch Did Scalia Proud (If Not Trump); The president’s Supreme Court appointee joined the liberal justices in striking down a deportation law, but his predecessor likely would have agreed.”

And in commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Gorsuch’s Good Opinion: Trump’s nominee protects liberty like Scalia would have.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch’s Long Game: Why the justice sided with the Supreme Court’s liberals to protect immigrants from deportation.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Neil Gorsuch voted with the liberal justices, but his opinion should chill you to the bone; If you are surprised by Gorsuch’s vote to protect immigrants, you haven’t been paying attention to Gorsuch’s record.”

“Supreme Court Divided on Sales Taxes for Online Purchases”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court divided on whether states should tax all online sales.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court split on whether online sellers must collect sales taxes across U.S.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Internet Sales-Tax Case; Several justices appeared reluctant to overturn a pre-internet precedent exempting many online retailers from collecting sales taxes.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court closely divided on changing rules for online sales tax collection.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs whether online retailers should collect sales tax.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court hears case about online sales tax collection.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court struggles with e-commerce sales tax case.”

Greg Stohr and Justin Blum of Bloomberg News report that “Internet Sales Taxes Divide U.S. Supreme Court Justices.”

Lydia DePillis of CNNMoney reports that “Supreme Court debates whether to allow states to tax all online sales.”

Bernie Becker of Politico reports that “Justices take on changed retail landscape in tax case.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Passing the buck on Internet shopping taxes?”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Justices May Not Disturb Status Quo When It Comes To Sales Tax For Online Purchases.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494.

“How I went from Supreme Court chief justice to ‘Citizen McLachlin’: After 36 years of making important choices, Beverley McLachlin is now making mundane ones again — part of the wonders and challenges of retirement.” Beverley McLachlin has this essay online at Maclean’s.

“Should a woman who lost four limbs to malpractice collect more than $750,000 for her suffering?” Cary Spivak of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article that begins, “Wisconsin’s burgeoning $1.4 billion insurance fund for doctors and state-mandated caps on damages in malpractice cases will go on trial Thursday when the state Supreme Court wrestles with the question of whether a woman who lost all four limbs to malpractice should collect millions of dollars for pain and suffering.”

“Vague Criminality and Mass Incarceration: Will Dimaya End the Insanity?” Leah Litman has this post at the Harvard Law Review Blog.

“9th Circuit will appoint special prosecutor to defend Arpaio’s criminal-contempt verdict”: Megan Cassidy of The Arizona Republic has this report.

Jacques Billeaud of The Associated Press reports that “Special prosecutor appointed to defend Arpaio case ruling.”

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Federal Appeals Court Will Name A Special Prosecutor To Argue That Joe Arpaio’s Guilty Verdict Should Stand.”

You can access today’s order of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Breaks Shoulder in Fall”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor breaks her shoulder.”

And Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Justice Sotomayor breaks shoulder in fall.”

“Mass. high court, citing guidance from US Supreme Court, strikes down stun gun ban”: Martin Finucane and John R. Ellement of The Boston Globe have this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Massachusetts top court declares stun gun ban unconstitutional.”

Bob Salsberg of The Associated Press reports that “Massachusetts court strikes down ban on stun guns.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Massachusetts High Court Strikes Down Stun Gun Ban; The U.S. Supreme Court had rejected the Massachusetts court’s earlier arguments for why stun guns aren’t covered by the Second Amendment, but had sent the case back for the Massachusetts court to consider other arguments.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.

“Will the Supreme Court Rein in Civil Forfeiture? A case from Indiana gives the justices an opportunity to protect Americans from abusive fines and property seizures.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“Paul Thissen, former state House Speaker, to join Minnesota Supreme Court; Gov. Mark Dayton appointed Thissen, a lawyer and a state representative from Minneapolis, to the state high court”: Jessie Van Berkel of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

And Dave Orrick of The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota has an article headlined “Dayton appoints Democrat Paul Thissen for MN Supreme Court. That makes 5 Dayton picks on 7-member court.”

“Here’s Why SCOTUS Should Block Travel Ban 3.0”: Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Is There Such a Thing as a Slam Dunk? The Corey Williams case comes close.” Andrew Cohen has this report online at The Marshall Project.

“Lucia v. SEC: Corpus linguistics and originalism.” Neal Goldfarb has this post at his “LAWnLinguistics” blog.

In today’s mail: I received a copy of law professor Nadine Strossen‘s new book “Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship.”

And in yesterday’s mail, I received my “cleaned-up” certificate (#70) from @SCOTUSPlaces, whom I had the great pleasure of meeting and speaking with during my visit last week to the Coke Appellate Inn of Court.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in large measure in Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Wilson v. Sellers, No. 16-6855. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And the Court issued a per curiam decision in United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2, dismissing the case as moot. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Will You Soon Have To Pay Sales Tax On Every Online Purchase?” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”