“Pfizer wins appeal in litigation claiming Lipitor causes diabetes”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Notice — Specifications for Binding Briefs and Appendices”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued this Notice yesterday.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(3), titled “Binding,” provides: “The brief must be bound in any manner that is secure, does not obscure the text, and permits the brief to lie reasonably flat when open.”

“Pa. Senate alters redistricting bill to change judicial elections”: Liz Navratil, Gillian McGoldrick, and Jonathan Lai of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.

“NC Democrats and Republicans reveal who they want on Supreme Court and Appeals Court”: Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.

“The Ohio Purge and the Future of Voting”: Dale Ho has this essay online at The New York Times.

“There Is No Supreme Court Vacancy, But This Group Is Already Spending Money To Attack Trump’s Potential Picks; Demand Justice is launching a five-figure digital ad campaign attacking judges on Trump’s Supreme Court short list”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Liberal groups launches ads against prospective Trump Supreme Court nominees.”

“Will the Supreme Court’s Understanding of the First Amendment Thwart Laws Aimed at Limiting Foreign Influence in U.S. Elections?” Richard L. Hasen has this post at “Just Security.”

“Will the Rule of Law Apply Along the Border?” Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Religious Belief, Sincerely Held: Examining the narrow slicing of the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling and contemplating the role of faith in our laws.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

In Bashman newz from New Zealand: Sam Sherwood of Stuff.co.nz reports that “Armed trio bash man with baseball bat in Hornby, Christchurch.”

“Sonia Sotomayor’s Dissent in the Big Voter-Purge Case Points to How the Law Might Still Be Struck Down”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Also online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has jurisprudence essays titled “Supreme Court, in 5–4 Decision, Allows States to Purge Voters for Their Failure to Vote” and “The Supreme Court’s Decision Greenlighting Voter Purges Is a Big Win for the Trump Administration.” And Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “Fraud Fiction Becomes Purge Reality: The Supreme Court’s decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute is the culmination of a decadeslong effort to disenfranchise minority and low-income voters.”

And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Blesses Voter Purges: A 5–4 decision gives the green light for states to use aggressive methods to remove voters from the rolls, a process that disproportionately affects minority communities.”