“Appeal judges mull ‘troubling’ questions on potential fallout from $3M verdict vs GSK over lawyer’s suicide”: Dan Churney of the Cook County Record has this report on an oral argument that occurred yesterday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

You can access the oral argument audio via this link. Attorney Lisa S. Blatt argued the appeal for appellant GSK.

“Factual Underpinnings of Eligibility: Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Berkheimer/Aatrix.” Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog about two orders denying rehearing en banc (here and here), accompanied by concurring and dissenting opinions, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“Jay-Z defeats copyright claims over ‘Big Pimpin'”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner had a post titled “Jay-Z Triumphs in ‘Big Pimpin’ Appeal as Egyptians Can’t Enforce Moral Rights; The rapper and producer Timbaland were accused of mutilating a song first featured in a 1960 Egyptian film.”

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

“Appeals Court Dismisses 2011 Police Brutality Claims Against UC Administrators, Police”: Bay City News Service has this report.

And Matthew Renda of Courthouse News Service reports that “Occupy Protesters Lose Case Against Campus Cops.”

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

“[W]e join every court that has directly addressed these issues in holding that it is neither unconstitutional nor a violation of RFRA to print the national motto on currency.” So ruled a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today in a case brought by a plaintiff whom the opinion describes as “an adherent of what he calls non-theistic Satanism.” Chief Judge Diane P. Wood wrote the opinion of the court.

“6th Circ. Affirms Freeze On Disbarred Fen-Phen Atty’s Assets”: Emily Field of Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

Stephen Six on appeal in the Fourth Circuit: Remember former Tenth Circuit nominee Stephen Six? He was among the appellants represented on appeal by Kannon K. Shanmugam in a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Two new petitions call on SCOTUS to decide workplace protections for gays, lesbians”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“SCOTUS for law students: Supreme Court celebrity.” Stephen Wermiel has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Republicans Lost The Same-Sex Marriage Fight. Here’s How They Plan To Win The War. Everything the anti-abortion movement did is happening again.” Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Quiet Time? Oral Arguments Disappear in Federal Appeals Courts; The number and percentage of cases argued at the federal appellate level is fading, leaving firms to ask where their next generation of appellate lawyers can turn for courtroom experience.” Ross Todd of The Am Law Litigation Daily has this report.

Here in Pennsylvania, the answer to that question is the state appellate courts. In particular, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania — the far busier of the Commonwealth’s two intermediate appellate courts — allows oral argument whenever counsel for the appealing party requests it. As a result, the opposite problem frequently arises — having to expend the resources to prepare for oral argument in appeals that objectively do not merit it.

Appellate advocates at the upper levels of our profession may not themselves notice a marked decline in oral argument, because they (or dare I say we) are fortunate to work mostly on cases that merit oral argument even under today’s more restrictive standards. Moreover, when representing the party that won below, a lack of oral argument is often viewed as a good sign — a likely indication of affirmance — which is of course the client’s objective.

The way to have the best chance of oral argument under today’s more restrictive standards is to demonstrate that the appeal merits it. That may not always be possible, because the showing depends more on the case itself than on the appellate advocate’s skills.

In reflecting back on my own experiences, I can only identify one case in particular where I was very surprised that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did not request oral argument. My client had lost below, and I thought we had set forth a strong case for reversal in our appellate briefs. As a matter of statistics, reversal is far less likely to occur in a case that has not received oral argument. Thus, I had appropriately cautioned my co-counsel and the client that our chances of winning the appeal had greatly decreased once the case had not been selected for oral argument. Yet even this story ultimately has a happy ending, as the Third Circuit ended up reversing without oral argument, which to this day remains a very rare occurrence.

“An Epic Case, Its Not-So-Immaculate Concepcion, and a Few Thoughts on Conservative Jurisprudence”: Michael S. Greve has this post at the Law and Liberty blog.

“Supreme Court Has Another Chance to Rule on Antigay Bias; A company that fired a gay skydiving instructor has asked the high court to rule on whether existing U.S. law bans sexual orientation discrimination”: Trudy Ring of The Advocate has this report.

Equality Case Files has posted the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“The Curious Incident of the Court That Denied Cert: The Supreme Court declined to hear a case on Arkansas’s regulation of abortion — a lack of action that may speak volumes.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Sixth Circuit Shenanigans: Is ‘In God We Trust’ Really Just Barely Constitutional?” Diana Verm has this post at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog.

“Shirley Abrahamson won’t seek another term, setting up scramble for Wisconsin Supreme Court seat”: Patrick Marley and Bill Glauber of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have this report.

Back in September 2004, then-Chief Justice Abrahamson participated in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature. You can access the interview at this link.

“Supreme Court colleagues vie for chief justice job”: In today’s edition of The Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser, Melissa Brown has a front page article that begins, “Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s shadow will loom large in a June 5 Republican primary in which the judge who replaced Moore will face off a colleague determined to assume Moore’s bellicose mantle against social issues such as same-sex marriage.”

“Appellate court in Chicago won’t throw out ex-Rep. Aaron Schock’s indictment”: Jon Seidel of The Chicago Sun-Times has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued the opinion of the court for a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Abused LA Inmates Win $740,000 In Damages After Jury Sees Videos Of Deputy Violence”: Christina Villacorte of The Los Angeles Daily News had this article back in November 2013. And in earlier coverage, the newspaper previously published articles headlined “LA County, Sheriff’s Department on trial for excessive force” and “LA Sheriff’s Department Excessive Force Trial Reveals Deputy Punched, Kicked Inmates 35 Times.”

In a lengthy opinion issued today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s compensatory damages award, a punitive damages award of $210,000, and an award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ counsel in excess of $5 million.

“We now consider whether forcing someone to withdraw money from an ATM and then stealing the money has a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to support jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today answered that question in the affirmative in an opinion you can access here.

“The Supreme Court majority is quietly barring workers from having their day in court”: Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this essay online at The Sacramento Bee.

“The Cert Denial in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“State To Appeal Dismissal Of Kennedy Cousin Michael Skakel’s Murder Conviction To U.S. Supreme Court”: Dave Altimari of The Hartford Courant has this report.

And Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey of The New York Times report that “Skakel Appeal Appears Bound for U.S. Supreme Court.”

“U.S. justices refuse to hear Arkansas abortion case; Denial allows state to enact restrictions on use of pills”: Linda Satter has this front page article in today’s edition of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

“What An Arkansas Abortion Case Tells Us About Justice Kennedy’s Retirement Plans”: Kevin Daley of The Daily Caller has this report.

This blog’s coverage of yesterday’s denial of review can be accessed here.

“‘What did you make at your last job?’: why the salary question is bad for women and people of color; States and cities are barring companies from asking candidates the question — and businesses are starting to fight back.” Alexia Fernández Campbell of Vox has this report.

“Can the Court De-Politicize Masterpiece Cakeshop and Janus?” Erica Goldberg has this post at her blog, “In A Crowded Theater.”

“Court upholds Michigan’s 70-year-old age limit on judges”: Oona Goodin-Smith of The Flint Journal has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Rejects Legal Challenge to ‘In God We Trust’; Judges split on whether printing ‘In God We Trust’ on currency imposes a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

My earlier coverage of the oral argument of the appeal appeared in a post titled “Newdow and New Doe before the Sixth Circuit today.”

“Speculation rampant over Supreme Court investigation”: Hoppy Kercheval has this essay online at WV MetroNews.

“Supreme Court turns down challenge to SF advertising restrictions”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Get Off My Lawn! Sonia Sotomayor’s defense of property and privacy under the Fourth Amendment puts Thomas and Alito to shame.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“I’m in Prison for Practicing Politics: Under the legal arguments the prosecutors used to convict me, all fundraising can be viewed as bribery.” Rod Blagojevich has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Corpora and the Second Amendment: Responding to Weisberg on the meaning of ‘bear arms.'” Neal Goldfarb has this blog post at “Language Log.”

“Conservative and Libertarian Lawyers in the Era of Trump”: Josh Blackman has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.