Programming note: Due to some upcoming family-related travel on Wednesday morning and early afternoon, additional posts will not appear here until later Wednesday afternoon or Wednesday evening.

As always while I am traveling, appellate-related retweets are more likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

Eleventh Circuit grants rehearing en banc to consider whether “the risk of force clause in 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya?” You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link. The original, unanimous three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.

And a letter listing the issues before the en banc court can be viewed at this link.

Earlier this month, I had this post about a related Tenth Circuit decision holding that sec. 924(c)(3)(B) is in fact unconstitutionally vague in the aftermath of Dimaya.

“Man wrongly imprisoned for 20 years can sue San Francisco police over false evidence claims”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued last Friday.

“9th Circuit hears arguments on Trump administration’s bid to end protection for ‘Dreamers'”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Matt Zapotosky of The Washington Post reports that “Appeals court hears arguments on DACA — but offers few clues on how it might rule.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Questions Grounds for Canceling Policy on ‘Dreamers’; Trump’s effort to end DACA program reviewed for first time by appellate judges.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Trump’s tweets could sink efforts to end DACA, appeals court says; Judge: Immigration comments may have influenced then-acting homeland security secretary’s decision.”

Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press reports that “Judges hear arguments, ask questions on immigration program.”

Mica Rosenberg and Lucy Nicholson of Reuters report that “U.S. judges weigh fate of program protecting young immigrants.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Appeals court judges question Trump move to end DACA.”

And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Court appears skeptical of allowing Trump to end DACA.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted the video of today’s oral argument on YouTube at this link.

“Supreme Court’s embrace of states’ rights could aid California in its battle with the Trump administration”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“At Mueller Probe’s First Trial, Expect More Blunt Lectures From the Bench; Judge in Paul Manafort case, who questioned special counsel Robert Mueller’s authority to bring it, is known for stern rebukes and emotional asides”: Aruna Viswanatha of The Wall Street Journal has an article that begins, “Former prosecutor Gene Rossi learned to expect lectures and humiliation when he appeared before U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis, who regularly ridiculed his arguments.”

“Just Let Them Eat Cake: What a decision in the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop case means for the food industry — and LGBTQ rights.” Andrea Strong has this report online at Eater.

“Arkansas judge bars TV ads attacking state Supreme Court justice. Is that constitutional?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Arkansas Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order Against Allegedly Libelous Political Ad; The ad criticizes Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson; the TRO that she just got today is almost certainly an unconstitutional prior restraint.”

“Justice Britt Grant — Nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit”: Daniel B. Tilley has this post at “The Vetting Room” blog.

“Two new confirmations bring Trump’s circuit judges to 21”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Senate Confirms Two Circuit Court Nominees, One Narrowly.”

This afternoon, the U.S. Senate confirmed Joel M. Carson III to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a vote of 77-to-21.

And the Senate also confirmed John B. Nalbandian to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by a vote of 53-to-45.

“For women in law, ‘RBG’ is their superhero movie”: Henry Gass of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “Notorious RBG: How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a trailblazer for gender equality; A new documentary highlights the 85-year-old jurist’s work two decades before she joined the Supreme Court.”

“Pritzker alumnus confirmed to US Court of Appeals”: Jonah Dylan of The Daily Northwestern has this report.

“Priority of Precedent: When Same-Day Federal Circuit Opinions are in Tension.” Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog.

“Supreme Court declines to hear ‘podcasting patent’ case, handing win to EFF; Back in 2015, Personal Audio’s claimed patent was invalidated by a federal court”: Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report.

“Supreme Court establishes a broad new protection for states’ independence”: Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Pa. Supreme Court hears arguments on Philly soda tax”: Laura McCrystal of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“The Coming Resurrection of Raoul Berger? A Remembrance of Government by Judiciary.” Stephen Presser has this post at the Law and Liberty blog.

“Byrd v. United States: The Supreme Court Takes a Broad View of Fourth Amendment Standing; An interesting new ruling in the rental car case.” Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“1st appeals court to weigh Trump’s decision to end DACA”: Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press has this report.

And Kartikay Mehrotra of Bloomberg News reports that “Dreamers Face Crucial Test as Trump Urges Court to Undo Policy.”

The appeal will be argued at 1 p.m. pacific time (4 p.m. eastern time) in Pasadena before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, consisting of Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and John B. Owens. The Ninth Circuit will stream the oral argument live on YouTube via this link.