“Above The Law Goes To The Supreme Court: Check out this very interesting cert petition, just filed by Paul Clement.” David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

“Judges Wouldn’t Consider Forgiving Crippling Student Loans — Until Now; For decades, college debt was immune from the bankruptcy process; Judges are actively seeking ways help to debtors”: Katy Stech Ferek of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“The 96-Year-Old Brooklyn Judge Standing Up to the Supreme Court”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“Tribute: ‘Reinhardt and I’ by Alex Kozinski.” The “Concurring Opinions” blog has this post.

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

1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 16-1220. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Sen. Grassley Says Report On Sexual Harassment In Judiciary Simply Kicks The Can”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this morning’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Divided over partisan election maps, Supreme Court could learn a lesson from divided college campus”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Richard A. Posner‘s successor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued his first published opinion: Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder, Jr. issued this decision yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Wisconsin redistricting: Here’s what you need to know about imminent Supreme Court ruling.” Craig Gilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“Cincinnati Reds argue in front of Ohio Supreme Court: No taxes on Reds bobbleheads.” The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has posted the documents filed in the case at this link. And you can view the video of today’s oral argument via this link.

“Senators unhappy with judiciary’s response to harassment in courthouses”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost has an article headlined “Federal Courts Want To Fix Their Sexual Harassment Problem — Without Hearing From Victims; Senators also can’t believe that the judicial branch, largely run by powerful men, has Me Too troubles. Really?”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Senate Judiciary urges response to sexual harassment in federal courts.”

Melissa Heelan Stanzione of Bloomberg Law reports that “Few Repercussions for Retired Judges Accused of Sex Harassment.”

And Ross Todd of The Recorder reports that “Senate Committee Questions Judiciary’s Anti-Harassment Efforts After Kozinski Scandal.”

“Army judge not planning for 9/11 trial at Guantanamo in 2019”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

Eighth Circuit affirms class certification and settlement of Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“Originalism, the Contracts Clause, and the Sveen Case”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay at Justia.com’s Verdict.

“What About the Free Speech Clause Issue in Masterpiece?” Robert Post has this entry at the “Take Care” blog.

“One Opinion More Complex Than the Next”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Senate Judiciary Committee takes up #MeToo in the courts”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Confronting Sexual Harassment and Other Workplace Misconduct in the Federal Judiciary”: Today’s hearing on this subject of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is now underway, and you can view the hearing live, online via this link.

“Neil Gorsuch and the Ginsburg Rules”: Lori A. Ringhand and Paul M. Collins, Jr. have this article forthcoming in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

“Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling must not repeat errors of Japanese internment”: Peter Irons has this essay online at The San Francisco Chronicle.

“What to expect as the Supreme Court rules on Georgia’s water fight”: Tamar Hallerman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

“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.”

“Baseball Keeps Antitrust Exemption as U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeals”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Supreme Court Upholds Ohio’s Purge of Voting Rolls”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds Ohio’s way of removing infrequent voters from rolls.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court makes it easier for states to remove voters from the rolls if they skip an election.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says states can remove voters who skip elections, ignore warnings.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Backs Ohio Voter Purge; Decision by conservative justices could open the door for more states to adopt such rules.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court gives OK to states to clean voting rolls.”

Jack Torry and Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch report that “Ohio’s voter purge system upheld by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio’s process for updating voter registration rolls.”

Hailey Fuchs of The Toledo Blade reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court backs Ohio voter purge; Democrats blast ruling.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Backs States’ Voter-Purge Efforts.”

Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purges; The 5-4 ruling found that Ohio’s practice of stripping voters from its rolls if they don’t vote over a six-year period and don’t respond to mailed warnings did not violate a pair of federal laws.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPRs “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Ohio Voter-Purge Law.”

“Tied U.S. Supreme Court decision means Washington must remove barriers to salmon migration; A tie 4-4 vote by the high court upholds a lower-court decision ordering barriers to salmon migration be removed, ending a bitter decades-old controversy”: Hal Bernton of The Seattle Times has this report.

Joel Connelly of SeattlePI reports that “Courts have ruled — Wash. must fix culverts so salmon can pass.”

In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, John Eligon has an article headlined “‘This Ruling Gives Us Hope’: Supreme Court Sides With Tribe in Salmon Case.”

And Phuong Le of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court tie favors Indian tribes in Washington state.”