“That Texas Judge Only Ruled Against Obamacare to Troll the Libs”: Law professor Christina S. Ho has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Raise Your Hand if You Want to Judge Trump: If the president is impeached, what if, just as an experiment, the electorate gives acting like judges a whirl? But I mean the old-fashioned kind, without keggers with Squee.” Columnist Sarah Vowell has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Frank v. Gaos and the importance of actual injury”: Daryl L. Joseffer and Ashley C. Parrish have this post online at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

“Power versus discretion: Extraordinary relief and the Supreme Court.” Steve Vladeck has this guest post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“200 Years, Countless Stories | Paul Clement ’92”: Harvard Law School has posted this video on YouTube.

“Trust in the justices of the Supreme Court is waning. Here are three ways to fortify the court.” Law professor Bruce Ackerman has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Diverging Supreme Court Trends May Leave Some Conservatives Out In the Cold”: Derek Muller has this post at the “Law and Liberty” blog.

“A Supreme Court Divided. On the Right. Is there a split among conservatives between ideology and the court’s long-term legitimacy?” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Court overturns forced medication order in bank threat”: The Associated Press has this report on an interesting ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“U. of Mary Washington could have done more to protect students from harassment, judges find”: Ann E. Marimow and Nick Anderson of The Washington Post have this report.

Adele Uphaus-Conner of The Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia reports that “Appeals court reinstates several claims made against UMW in 2015 sex-discrimination lawsuit.”

And Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Court reinstates sex harassment suit against Virginia school.”

You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Ohio’s heartbeat bill aims to trigger Supreme Court battle. Here’s what that means.” Mary Kilpatrick of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

“The ACLU Takes Aim at Criminal-Defamation Laws; The civil-rights group is backing a test case arguing that New Hampshire’s statute violates the Constitution”: Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic has this report.

“The Most Effective Resistance Today Is Coming From the Courts; Republicans couldn’t repeal Obamacare in Congress, but judges keep trying”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

And online at The Nation, David Cole has an essay titled “Why the Decision Declaring Obamacare Unconstitutional Will Be Reversed; The only immediate effect of Judge Reed O’Connor’s fundamentally flawed ruling will be to underscore Republicans’ political weakness.”

“By gutting Obamacare, Judge Reed O’Connor handed Texas a win; It wasn’t the first time; The Texas Attorney General’s Office has made a habit of filing lawsuits against the federal government that land in O’Connor’s court”: Emma Platoff of The Texas Tribune has this report.

“Judge Who Invalidated Obamacare Has Been A ‘Go-To Judge’ For Republicans, Critics Say”: Ashley Lopez had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Justice Kavanaugh Can’t Be Above Ethics Rules, Can He? The dismissal of complaints against him raises questions about how Congress can police the Supreme Court.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Republicans Say They Weren’t Intending For Obamacare To Get Tossed Out By The Courts, But Many Don’t Mind That It Did; A Texas judge tossed out the ACA, saying the repeal of the individual mandate in the tax law invalidated the whole thing; Republicans say it could be another opportunity to repeal Obamacare after lawmaker efforts failed”: Paul McLeod of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Judge signals skepticism in Trump team’s bid to block Obamacare suit”: Sarah N. Lynch of Reuters has a report that begins, “A U.S. judge signaled skepticism on Wednesday toward a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to block a lawsuit by the state of Maryland seeking to preserve the Obamacare law in a case that also challenges Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general.”

“How Not to Foul-Up Your Appeal, Part One: The Notice of Appeal.” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, can be accessed here.

An opinion that the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday and an unpublished opinion that the Third Circuit issued last week help illustrate some of the points I sought to make in the column.

“Colorado baker back in court over 2nd LGBT bias allegation”: Colleen Slevin of The Associated Press has this report.

“Disciplinary Panel Forwards Kavanaugh Misconduct Complaints to Congress”: Paul Gordon has this post at the blog of People For the American Way.

“Democrats to block end-of-year judges package”: Alexander Bolton and Jordain Carney of The Hill have this report.

“Trump judicial nominees, including St. Louis lawyer, in limbo as Congress draws to close”: Chuck Raasch of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report.

“Women head to Illinois for pill abortions after Missouri begins enforcing pelvic exam rule”: Jack Suntrup has this article in today’s edition of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“Hawley gets plum committee assignments, including judiciary and homeland security”: Chuck Raasch of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report.

“How a swipe at Obamacare in the GOP tax law came back to haunt them”: Bernie Becker of Politico has this report.

“2019 Outlook: Trump Judge Picks Could Flip Circuit Courts Red.” Patrick L. Gregory of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Maryland AG Frosh seeks to preserve Affordable Care Act and opposes acting U.S. attorney general’s involvement”: Jeff Barker of The Baltimore Sun has this report.

Sarah N. Lynch of Reuters reports that “Maryland judge to weigh Obamacare case.”

And Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News reports that “Obamacare Battle Now Before a Baltimore Judge Picked by Obama.”

“This case asks us to decide whether, under Texas law, a driver’s neurobiological response to a smartphone notification can be a cause in fact of a car crash.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday in Meador v. Apple, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim.

“Prosecutors win court fight over secret subpoena of a foreign company”: Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post has this report.

Ed Pilkington of The Guardian (UK) has an article headlined “Sealed v Sealed: ruling sheds light on mystery case thought to involve Mueller; Secretive dispute over subpoena revealed to concern an unnamed corporation, but many questions remain.”

David Glovin of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Prevails in Subpoena Fight Against Mystery Corporation.”

Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Court orders company to comply with special counsel subpoena in mystery grand jury appeal.”

Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “Mystery company must comply with subpoena linked to Mueller probe, appellate court rules.”

Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Mueller appears victorious in mystery subpoena dispute; The ruling offers the intriguing detail that the entity fighting the Mueller subpoena is a foreign-owned company, not a specific individual, as many had speculated.”

Lydia Wheeler and Morgan Chalfant of The Hill report that “DC Circuit upholds mystery grand jury subpoena.”

And at the “Lawfare” blog, Scott R. Anderson and Quinta Jurecic have a post titled “What to Make of the Mystery Judgment in In re Grand Jury Subpoena.”

You can access yesterday’s per curiam judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“The North Carolina GOP’s Latest Ploy to Save Its Partisan Gerrymander Is Almost Literally Unbelievable”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Without Evidence: Joel Richard Paul’s John Marshall.” At the “Law and Liberty” blog, Kevin Walsh has this post reviewing Joel Richard Paul’s book, “Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times.”

“In appeal, Poliquin asks court to block Golden’s certification as winner; Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin is appealing last week’s decision by a federal judge rejecting his constitutional concerns over ranked-choice voting”: Kevin Miller of The Portland (Me.) Press Herald has this report.

Judy Harrison of The Bangor Daily News reports that “Poliquin asks court to stop Maine from certifying a winner in 2nd District race.”

Steve Collins of The Lewiston Sun Journal reports that “Bruce Poliquin asks appeals court to block state from declaring Jared Golden the winner.”

Marina Villeneuve of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Options dwindling, GOP congressman appeals to keep his seat.”

And Steve Mistler of Maine Public Radio reports that “Bruce Poliquin Moves To Block Certifying Jared Golden’s 2nd District Win.”

“The Texans Challenging Obamacare Have No Standing; If there’s no penalty for going without insurance, there’s no injury; That should be obvious”: Law professor Nicholas Bagley has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And at the “Balkinization” blog, Neil Siegel has a post titled “Texas v. U.S.: Congress’s Inherent Power to Require No One to Do Anything.”

“More than 80 ethics complaints against Brett Kavanaugh dismissed because he’s now a Justice”: Christal Hayes of USA Today has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. judicial council tosses misconduct claims against Kavanaugh.”

Nina Totenberg of NPR reports that “Federal Panel Of Judges Dismisses All 83 Ethics Complaints Against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Samuel Chamberlain of Fox News reports that “Judicial panel dismisses misconduct complaints against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Lydia Wheeler and Brett Samuels of The Hill report that “Ethics complaints against Kavanaugh dismissed because they don’t apply to Supreme Court justices.”

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “All 83 Of The Ethics Complaints Against Justice Brett Kavanaugh Were Dismissed Because He’s On The Supreme Court Now; A panel of judges concluded that Kavanaugh is no longer covered by the judiciary’s disciplinary system now that he’s a Supreme Court justice.”