“Eric Conn clients who lost disability benefits could get them back after court ruling”: Bill Estep of The Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued on Wednesday.

“The Two-Emperor Problem: What Trump v. John Roberts reveals about the Republic.” Columnist Ross Douthat has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Online at The Washington Post, columnist Hugh Hewitt has an essay titled “John Roberts counterpunches the counterpunching president.”

Douglas Ernst of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Schumer rips Chief Justice Roberts’ ‘political’ rulings while praising response to Trump; Democrat laments judge’s ‘partisan decisions which seem highly political.’” And in related commentary, Ralph Z. Hallow has an essay titled “Chief Justice Roberts shows how high the height of absurdity can actually reach,” while Wesley Pruden has an essay titled “It’s not war, but a remarkable skirmish at the top.”

Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News has a report headlined “Eager to slam Trump, Schumer contradicts himself in support of Chief Justice Roberts, critics say.” And in commentary, Robert Charles has an essay titled “Trump is right about biased judges; Schumer acknowledges ‘highly political’ rulings.”

Online at NBC News, law professor Jessica Levinson has an essay titled “Trump’s attack on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts could lead to a constitutional crisis — but he has a point; Trump is doing his best to undermine the judiciary by portraying judges as nothing more than politicians in robes.”

And online at The Guardian (UK), Walter Shapiro has an essay titled “If Trump is cornered, the judges he disdains may finally bring him down.”

“It’s not just ‘Obama judges.’ Here are Republican appointees who have ruled against Trump.” Christal Hayes of USA Today has this report.

And online at NBC News, Danny Cevallos has an essay titled “Chief Justice Roberts’ rebuke of Trump’s comment was carefully worded for a reason; The chief justice linguistically tiptoed through the minefield of judicial ethics in order to publicly defend his judicial colleagues.”

“What the Cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Got Wrong: Fans defended her choice not to retire under President Obama; Now it may be too late.” Stephanie Mencimer has this essay online at Mother Jones.

“Among Conservatives, Some Measured Support for Chief Justice’s Rebuke of Trump”: Jacey Fortin of The New York Times has this report.

“Ruling in genital mutilation case shocks women’s advocates”: Amy Forliti of The Associated Press has this report.

“Chief Justice Roberts is wrong. We do have Obama judges and Trump judges.” Columnist Marc A. Thiessen has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“George Conway Scorches Trump’s ‘Misleading’ Attack On 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals; Conway laid out data tearing holes in a web of misinformation about a court Trump loves to hate”: Mary Papenfuss of HuffPost has this report.

“Trump Asks Supreme Court for Fast Appeal of Transgender Military Ban”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Trump administration asks Supreme Court to immediately take up transgender military ban.”

Christal Hayes of USA Today reports that “Trump asks Supreme Court to fast-track ruling on transgender military ban.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Trump admin asks Supreme Court to speed transgender troops case.”

Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press report that “Government asks high court to hear transgender military case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Trump takes bid to restrict transgender troops to Supreme Court.”

Ariane de Vogue and Joan Biskupic of CNN report that “Trump administration asks Supreme Court to take up military transgender ban.”

Elizabeth Zwirz of Fox News reports that “DOJ asks Supreme Court to take up case of military transgender ban.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Trump Administration Just Asked The Supreme Court To Let It Enforce Its Transgender Military Ban; Courts have been skeptical of the administration’s attempts to bar transgender people from serving in the military.”

You can view the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment at this link.

“Historic court session held in Cherokee”: Holly Kays of The Smoky Mountain News of Waynesville, North Carolina has this article reporting on an oral argument session that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held last week at the Cherokee Justice Center.

According to the article, “The two-hour session represented the first time that a federal court of appeals had ever held court on tribal land.”

“Supreme Court’s future rides on Ginsburg’s health”: Lydia Wheeler of The Hill has this report.

“Trump demands an end to 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals thwarting his border policies”: Doug Stanglin of USA Today has this report.

Mark Sherman and Jill Colvin of The Associated Press report that “Trump demands judicial ‘common sense,’ shrugs off Roberts.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Escalates His Feud With Roberts Over ‘Obama Judges’ Rebuke.”

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News reports that “Trump continues war of words with Chief Justice Roberts; calls 9th Circuit Court a ‘total disaster.’”

This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Political Scientist Weighs In On Trump’s Criticism Of 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals.”

And in commentary, The New York Sun has published an editorial titled “The Trump-Roberts Spat.”

“In the battle over taxing bobbleheads: ‘This one belongs to the Reds.'” Jessie Balmert of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

Laura Hancock of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Cincinnati Reds score win at Ohio Supreme Court in bobblehead case.”

Laura A. Bischoff of The Dayton Daily News has an article headlined “‘This one belongs to the Reds,’ Ohio Supreme Court says in tax case.”

And Dan Sewell of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Reds exempt from tax on promotional bobbleheads.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link. Two justices joined in the opinion announcing the judgment of the court. Three justices concurred in the judgment only without opinion. And two justices dissented.

“Supreme Court Party Time: The Federalist Society’s celebration of Brett Kavanaugh is a reminder that social control can shape the way justices approach their jobs.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Why Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

Online at The New Yorker, John Cassidy has a post titled “Why Did Chief Justice John Roberts Decide to Speak Out Against Trump?”

Online at Fox News, Joseph diGenova has an essay titled “Justice Roberts’ attack against President Trump was blatantly political and wrong.”

And at “Power Line,” Paul Mirengoff has a post titled “‘Obama judges’? Pretty much.”

“Chief Justice Defends Judicial Independence After Trump Attacks ‘Obama Judge'”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “Rebuking Trump’s criticism of ‘Obama judge,’ Chief Justice Roberts defends judiciary as ‘independent.’”

Jackie Calmes of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts denounces Trump’s criticism of a federal jurist as an ‘Obama judge.’”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Chief Justice Roberts Rebuts Trump’s Attacks on Judges, and President Tweets BackPresident counters the judiciary does have ‘Obama Judges.’”

William Cummings of USA Today has an article headlined “US does have ‘Obama judges’: Trump responds to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ rebuke.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has articles headlined “Chief Justice Roberts chides Trump: No such thing as ‘Obama judges’” and “Trump blasts Chief Justice Roberts over judicial scolding.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Roberts, Trump spar in extraordinary scrap over judges.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Trump clashes with conservative U.S. chief justice over judiciary.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Fires Back After Roberts Rejects ‘Obama Judges’ Label.”

Eli Watkins and Joan Biskupic of CNN report that “Trump slams chief justice after Roberts chides the President.”

Matthew Choi of Politico reports that “Trump hits back at Chief Justice Roberts, escalating an extraordinary exchange; The president had originally attacked a District Court judge who ruled against his asylum policy as an ‘Obama judge.’”

Chris Geidner and Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News report that “Chief Justice John Roberts Rebuked Trump For His Latest Attack On The Judiciary.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Chief Justice Roberts Issues Rare Rebuke To Trump; Trump Fires Back.”

“Federal Ban on Female Genital Mutilation Ruled Unconstitutional by Judge”: Pam Belluck of The New York Times has this report. My earlier post linking to additional coverage of yesterday’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Why Big Law Is Taking On Trump Over Immigration”: Annie Correal of The New York Times has this report.

“Conservative Heritage Foundation Revives Training Academy for Judicial Clerks”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Roberts raps Trump for ‘Obama judge’ comment”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back against President Donald Trump for his description of a judge who ruled against Trump’s migrant asylum policy as an ‘Obama judge.'”

“Genital mutilation ban ruled unconstitutional; judge drops charges against sect”: Robert Snell has this front page article in today’s edition of The Detroit News.

In today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press, Tresa Baldas has a front page article headlined “Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Judge voids U.S. female genital mutilation law.”

Laura Ly of CNN reports that “Charges dropped in first federal genital mutilation case in US.”

Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News reports that “Law banning female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional; Michigan doctors cleared of charges.”

Aris Folley of The Hill reports that “Judge orders female genital mutilation charges be dropped in historic case.”

And Steve Carmody of Michigan Radio reports that “Judge rules federal law against female genital mutilation ‘unconstitutional,’ dismisses some charges.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at this link.

“Trump Takes Aim at Appeals Court, Calling It a ‘Disgrace'”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “President Trump lashed out on Tuesday against the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, calling it a lawless disgrace and threatening unspecified retaliation.”

Jeremy Diamond and Ariane de Vogue of CNN report that “Trump rails against 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in wake of asylum ruling.”

And Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “Trump condemns ‘disgraceful’ 9th Circuit, dubbing it rubber-stamp for his foes.”

“Interview: Tom Goldstein.” Anna Salvatore has this post at her “High School SCOTUS” blog.

“US Supreme Court rejects ad challenge from state grape growers”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Fight over wedding invitations for same-sex couples heads to Arizona Supreme Court”: Jessica Boehm of The Arizona Republic has an article that begins, “The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case filed by wedding-invitation designers who are challenging a Phoenix law protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination.”

And Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Arizona high court will hear business’ challenge of anti-discrimination law.”

“Trump Is Losing His War Against the Courts: The judiciary has continued to quietly deliver subtle, devastating blows to the president’s agenda.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Trump rails against Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”: Brett Samuels of The Hill has this report.

“Conservative nonprofit with obscure roots and undisclosed funders paid Matthew Whitaker $1.2 million”: Robert O’Harrow Jr., Shawn Boburg, and Aaron C. Davis of The Washington Post have this report.

Bart Jansen and Steve Reilly of USA Today report that “Acting AG Matthew Whitaker released details of past income that shows $900K from nonprofit.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters has a report headlined “Explainer: Was Trump’s appointment of Whitaker lawful?”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The White House Won’t Say When Trump Formally Named Matthew Whitaker As Acting Attorney General.”

“House Democrats target DOJ decision not to defend Obamacare”: David Morgan of Reuters has this report.

“Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton”: Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times have this report.

“Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban overturned by U.S. District judge”: Sarah Fowler of The Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi has this report.

Emily Wagster Pettus of The Associated Press has a report headlined “US judge: Mississippi 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional.”

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Judge Ruled That Mississippi’s 15-Week Abortion Ban Is ‘Unequivocally’ Unconstitutional.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi at this link.

In today’s mail: I received a copy of law professor Eric J. Segall‘s new book, “Originalism as Faith.” It was great to finally meet Professor Segall earlier this month just before his presentation at the 2018 AJEI Summit in Atlanta.

“War court judge pursued immigration job for years while presiding over USS Cole case”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Whitaker is Unfit to be Attorney General, Acting or Otherwise: Beyond the unconstitutionality of his appointment, his views on judicial review and religious litmus tests should disqualify him.” Bruce Fein has this post online at The American Conservative.

“Democratic Senators Challenge Whitaker Appointment in Court”: Charlie Savage and Nicholas Fandos have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.