“Republicans Scramble for Ways to Rev Up Their Base”: At the “Daily Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine, Ed Kilgore has a post that begins, “The May 7 headline from the Washington Examiner is almost a shout: ‘Anthony Kennedy sends SCOTUS rumor mill into overdrive.'”

“Group strip searches of jail inmates appealed before 9th Circuit”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report on a case argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can view the oral argument video on YouTube via this link.

“ACLU, others urge appeals court to force cross off Lehigh County seal”: Tom Shortell of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this report.

“#MeToo in the federal court system is doomed to fail”: Stacy N. Cammarano has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Brian Hagedorn considering Supreme Court run”: Molly Beck of The Wisconsin State Journal has this report.

“El Chapo’s Lawyer Asks to Move Trial, Hoping to Avoid a ‘Spectacle'”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“Justices’ Personalities Shine Through in Opinions About Orders”: Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Interview: Benjamin Wittes.” The “High School SCOTUS” blog has this post.

On Sunday, “How Appealing” celebrated its 16th birthday, which makes this blog just a few months older than the author of the “High School SCOTUS” blog.

The “High School SCOTUS” blog itself is quickly approaching the two-month anniversary of its creation. If you haven’t been reading it closely thus far, here’s a post about Neil M. Gorsuch’s writings for The Columbia Spectator. For whatever reason, something I wrote for that same newspaper makes a cameo before that post’s end. And here’s an interview with Gabe Roth, founder of Fix the Court, in which he identifies the blogs he enjoys reading.

“GOP faces internal battle over changing Senate rules”: Alexander Bolton of The Hill has this report pertaining to the U.S. Senate‘s consideration of judicial nominees.

“President Donald Trump and Federal Bench Diversity”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this paper at Washington and Lee Law Review Online.

“Senate committee to consider Ryan Bounds’ 9th Circuit judicial nomination”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report. Tomorrow’s hearing for judicial nominees of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. eastern time.

“Antonin Scalia Law School Is Under Attack for Being Successful and Different”: John O. McGinnis has this post at the Law and Liberty blog.

“New CIA Documents Raise More Questions About Efficacy of The Agency’s Torture Program”: Emma Loop and Jason Leopold of BuzzFeed News have this report.

“A Scarlet Title IX Letter: A North Carolina court ruling could tarnish young people for life.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“New York’s top court refuses to free chimps from cages”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on an order denying review accompanied by a concurrence that the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — issued today.

“Trump complains of biased courts, but they often support his policies”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Clarence Thomas’ Wife Is Spreading a Conspiracy About a Soros-Backed ‘Coup’; Just another day in the ethical mess at the Supreme Court”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“What This Term’s SCOTUS Decisions Reveal About Neil Gorsuch: On the cases with less political valence the justices can ‘nerd out’ on legal theories and reveal their jurisprudential minds when they know their decisions won’t make the front pages.” Ilya Shapiro has this post at The Federalist.

“The Solicitor General’s Post-Factual World”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Originalism’s Legal Turn as a Libertarian Turn”: At the Law and Liberty blog, Jesse Merriam has a post that begins, “Over the last few weeks, Liberty Forum has featured several important and insightful essays on originalism, two of which I would like to explore here — partly as a way of seeking to understand Justice Gorsuch’s decision to concur with the four liberal Justices in an important immigration case, Sessions v. Dimaya.”

“Slicing and Dicing the Court’s 2017 Oral Arguments”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.