“On the Supreme Court, eight is enough”: Law professor Mary Sarah Bilder has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“How Ronald Reagan Turned the Supreme Court Into a Political Grenade: The 40th president of the United States laid the groundwork for blocking Merrick Garland, and getting Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.” You can access this new installment of Slate’s Political Gabfest, featuring Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz, via this link.

“Americans’ Privacy at Stake as Second Circuit Hears Hasbajrami FISA Case”: Elizabeth Goitein has this post at “Just Security.”

Nguyen the authoring judge’s last name is the same as the last name of the prevailing litigant: It happened most recently at the federal appellate level last Thursday in this ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Clement criticized for redistricting decision, still earns Supreme Court nomination”: Lauren Gibbons of mLive has an article that begins, “Supreme Court Justices Beth Clement and Kurtis Wilder were formally nominated by the Michigan Republican Party to run for reelection, despite organized opposition to Clement’s record on the state’s highest court.”

“What the case of a killer whale tells us about Brett Kavanaugh”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Why I Fear the D.C. Circuit’s Approach to Clerkship Hiring is Misguided.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Brett Kavanaugh: Bush’s intellectual body man.” Robert O’Harrow Jr. of The Washington Post has this report.

“Gov. Justice picks Armstead, Jenkins for interim spots on W.Va. Supreme Court”: Lacie Pierson of The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail has this report.

“The questions I have for Brett Kavanaugh”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Kavanaugh argued that a president can be impeached for lies, cover-ups and refusing to testify”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t want Kavanaugh’s confirmation to continue”: Law professor Laurence H. Tribe has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Olivia de Havilland, Now 102, Will Take ‘Feud’ to Supreme Court”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“New CNN podcast: ‘RBG Beyond Notorious.'” You can access all six episodes of, and an introduction to, this new podcast via this link.

And in recent days, CNN has posted related articles titled “Lilly Ledbetter: RBG’s dissent in landmark case still gives me ‘chills’” and “Justice Scalia’s son: Washington can learn from dad’s ‘rich friendship’ with RBG.”

“GOP pollster: Kavanaugh popular in Senate battlegrounds.” Burgess Everett of Politico has this report.

“Decades of ‘Fancy meeting you here!’ for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has this report.

“Court upholds jail for some too poor to post bail; The 11th Circuit upheld Calhoun’s cash bond policy”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“S.E.C. Will Rehear Dozens of Cases After Supreme Court Ruling”: Emily Flitter of The New York Times has this report.

“Is Kavanaugh Legitimate? Senate Democrats now want to deny Trump the appointment power.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Sessions defends himself from President Trump’s criticism, saying the Justice Department ‘will not be improperly influenced by political considerations'”: John Wagner and Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post have this report.

And Adam Edelman of NBC News reports that “Sessions fires back at Trump, says he ‘took control’ of Justice Department from Day 1; The attorney general responded after Trump attacked him by saying, ‘I put in an attorney general that never took control of the Justice Department.’“

“Judge Orders Release of Long-Secret Report on Leaks From Starr Inquiry”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Hundreds of Thousands of Veterans’ Appeals Dragged Out by Huge Backlog; VA on track to process a record 80,000 appeals in 2018 amid waiting list of about 238,000”: Ben Kesling of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Ex-Supreme Court justice Ketchum pleads guilty to federal wire fraud”: Lacie Pierson of The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail has this report.

“Neil Gorsuch is the most illegitimate member of the Supreme Court in U.S. history; The confirmation process broke a quarter century ago, and no one noticed”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at ThinkProgress.

“The Immigration Fight That May Soon Land in the Supreme Court; A DACA ruling from a federal district judge in Texas could conflict with previous orders that have allowed the program to proceed, and, as a result, bring the issue to the Court”: Priscilla Alvarez of The Atlantic has this report.

“Appeals court rules Alabama can’t ban second-trimester abortion procedure”: Ivana Hrynkiw of Alabama Media Group has this report.

And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court finds Alabama abortion law unconstitutional.”

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

Chief Judge Ed Carnes wrote the opinion of the Court, which does not even attempt to mask its distaste with the result. And Senior Circuit Judge Joel F. Dubina wrote a specially concurring opinion, also making clear his dissatisfaction with the U.S. Supreme Court‘s rulings recognizing a federal due process right to abortion. The third judge on the panel, U.S. District Judge Leslie J. Abrams (M.D. Ga.) sitting by designation, decided that discretion was the better part of valor and thus concurred only in the judgment without any further comment.

“Federal court backs activists who feed homeless in Fort Lauderdale”: David Fleshler of The South Florida Sun Sentinel has an article that begins, “A group whose symbol is a clenched fist holding a carrot won a legal victory over the city of Fort Lauderdale on Wednesday, when a federal appeals court found that its weekly events to feed homeless people were protected under the Constitution.”

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

“U.S. appeals court says GSK cannot be sued over generic drug suicide”: Tina Bellon of Reuters has this report.

And Diana Novak Jones of Law360.com reports that “Reed Smith Atty’s Widow Loses $3M GSK Verdict On Appeal” (subscription required for full access).

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

It is worth noting, contrary to the implication of the Reuters headline, that the Seventh Circuit did not hold (or even opine on) whether a brand name prescription drug manufacturer owes a duty to those who consume a generic medication whose warning label inadequately warned of the medication’s risks. Rather, the Seventh Circuit instead held that federal law precluded the brand name drug manufacturer from warning of the risk that the plaintiff contended should have been warned about, and thus federal law preempted plaintiff’s state law failure to warn claim.

Criminal defense attorney who proceeded without a lawyer wins habeas relief in Sixth Circuit from Kentucky state conviction for failing to file tax returns because trial court failed to obtain valid waiver of counsel: You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

The “Sixth Circuit Blog” covers the ruling in a post titled “A fool for a client?“

“A koala might have prevented a New Orleans political lawsuit, judge says”: Back on July 11, 2018, Kevin Litten of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans had an article that begins, “If the Coalition for Better Government had used a koala bear for their logo instead of a hawk, it’s likely the Alliance for Good Government never would have brought a federal trademark case accusing the Coalition of stealing their logo that features an eagle. That was among the conclusions that a panel of U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judges came to during a hearing Tuesday that was at times bizarre and pedantic.”

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this opinion written by Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan.

“DOD Detainee Photos Exempt From FOIA, 2nd Circ. Says”: Daniel Wilson of Law360.com has this report.

And Nick Rummell of Courthouse News Service reports that “US Can Keep Abu Ghraib Photos in the Dark.”

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

“Senate Democrats seek delay in Kavanaugh hearings, citing Cohen’s guilty plea”: John Wagner, Mike DeBonis, and Gabriel Pogrund of The Washington Post have this report.

Erin Kelly of USA Today reports that “Dems call for delay in Kavanaugh vote after Manafort conviction and Cohen guilty pleas.”

Marisa Schultz of The New York Post reports that “White House rejects Schumer’s call to delay Supreme Court nominee hearing.”

Lauren Fox and Phil Mattingly of CNN report that “Democrats call for halt of Kavanaugh nomination in light of Cohen, Manafort news.”

Nina Golgowski of HuffPost reports that “Senators Urge Delaying Brett Kavanaugh Hearing After Cohen, Manafort Cases; Sen. Mazie Hirono said Trump’s Supreme Court nominee was selected only to ‘protect, as we say in Hawaii, his own okole.’”

And in commentary, online at Slate, law professor Jed Shugerman has a jurisprudence essay titled “The High Crimes Justice: If Brett Kavanaugh is elevated now, it will leave an indelible stain on the Supreme Court.”

“Senate Democrats want to know whether Kavanaugh crossed line as source during Clinton probe”: Tom Hamburger, Robert Barnes, and Robert O’Harrow Jr. of The Washington Post have this report.

“The Kavanaugh Rule — The GOP has only one principle: Judges must be seated, quickly and permanently, but only by Republicans.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The South Will Disenfranchise Again: Five years later, the consequences of the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act are painfully clear.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.