“Ruth Bader Ginsburg absent from Supreme Court bench for second day in a row”: Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN have this report.

“National Emergency Powers and Trump’s Border Wall, Explained”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Costa and Philip Rucker have an article headlined “Trump aides lay foundation for emergency order to build wall, saying border is in ‘crisis.’” And Paul Sonne has an article headlined “To build border wall as a national emergency, Trump would need to tap existing military budget.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Kurtis Lee has an article headlined “Trump has threatened to declare a national emergency to get his border wall — but will that work?”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “Can Trump Build a Wall Under a National Emergency? A move by Trump to build a border wall might survive court challenges, but Congress could take steps to defund it.”

William Cummings and John Fritze of USA Today have an article headlined “President Trump could declare a national emergency. But would that get him funds for a wall?”

David Sherfinski of The Washington Times has an article headlined “House Majority Leader Hoyer: Trump lacks authority to use emergency powers to build wall.”

And at the “Lawfare” blog, Margaret Taylor has a post titled “Declaring an Emergency to Build a Border Wall: The Statutory Arguments.”

“How Cities Make Money by Fining the Poor: In many parts of America, like Corinth, Miss., judges are locking up defendants who can’t pay — sometimes for months at a time.” Matthew Shaer will have this article in this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine.

“No ‘Emergency’ Will Allow Trump to Build His Wall; There’s no escape clause in the Constitution that lets him defy Congress”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

And also online there, law professor Cass R. Sunstein has an essay titled “Trump’s Wall Fails Trump’s Test for New Regulations; Suppose government used anecdotal evidence for all its rule-making.”

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

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Johnnie Lee Savory’s civil suit thrown out in Chicago’s federal court”: Back in December 2017, Andy Kravetz of The Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star had an article that begins, “A federal judge last week threw out a lawsuit filed by Johnnie L. Savory, saying the former Peoria man’s claims of ‘malicious prosecution’ 40 years ago in the wake of a double murder were barred by the statute of limitations.”

Yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this decision reversing the district court’s dismissal of the suit as untimely.

“Former Wisconsin Chief Deputy Solicitor General Ryan Walsh Joins Eimer Stahl”: The law firm of Eimer Stahl LLP issued this news release today.

“Elected officials cannot silence critics on social media, appeals court rules”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

Justin Wise of The Hill reports that “Appeals court rules Virginia politician violated Constitution by blocking critic on social media.”

Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has a report headlined “Court: Politicians who block citizens on social media violate 1st Amendment; 4th Circuit: County official’s Facebook page is a public forum, must accept all.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has an essay titled “Appeals Court Rules Lawmakers Cannot Block Their Critics on Social Media.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Fourth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“It’s Time for Colorado and the Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner to Reach a Deal”: Law professor Eric Segall has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Sotomayor and Gorsuch Resume Their Fight for the Future of the Sixth Amendment”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“US Supreme Court refuses to block Healey’s bid to investigate ExxonMobil”: Martin Finucane of The Boston Globe has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rejects Exxon in climate change document dispute.”

Timothy Cama of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rejects Exxon Mobil appeal in climate case.”

And Umair Irfan of Vox reports that “The Supreme Court just declined to hear Exxon Mobil’s appeal in a climate change lawsuit; Exxon will now have to turn over internal documents about its knowledge of climate change.”

“As Supreme Court Shifts Under Trump, Cuomo Vows to Expand Abortion Rights”: Vivian Wang will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

And in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Melanie Grayce West will have an article headlined “Cuomo Vows to Codify Roe v. Wade Decision into New York Constitution; Governor is pushing to pass both Reproductive Health Act and Contraceptive Care Act.”

“Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race”: Scott Shane and Alan Blinder have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Will DOJ side with defendants who want Supreme Court to kill M&A class actions?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Judiciary Operating on Limited Funds During Shutdown”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has issued this news release, which states that the federal judiciary has “revised its original estimate and now is working toward the goal of sustaining paid operations through Jan. 18, 2019.”

“Government Shutdown May Turn a Day in Court Into a Four-Year Wait”: Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Christina Goldbaum had this article in Saturday’s edition of The New York Times.

And Erik Larson of Bloomberg News has an article headlined “Courts Run Out of Cash Next Friday: Here’s What Happens Then.”

“Politicians cannot block social media foes: U.S. appeals court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

Access the transcripts of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: You can access at this link the transcript in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290.

And you can access at this link the transcript in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307.

“Senate must do its job on judicial nominees in 2019”: Derrick Johnson has this essay online at The Hill.

And online at The Post & Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, T. Anthony Spearman has an essay titled “Without fair judicial appointments and courts, there is no justice.”

“Gov. Bill Haslam grants full clemency to Cyntoia Brown, sets Aug. 7 release from prison”: Adam Tamburin and Anita Wadhwani of The Tennessean have this report.

“Trump’s Terrible Record on Property Rights: The President’s recent threat to use ‘the military version of eminent domain’ to seize property for his border wall is just the tip of a larger iceberg of policies and legal positions inimical to constitutional property rights.” Ilya Somin has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Trump asks Supreme Court to resolve groundwater fight”: Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire has this report.

“He Disparaged the Police on Facebook. So They Arrested Him.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“U.S. Supreme Court could side with Merck over Fosamax lawsuits”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“President Trump bets big on Supreme Court to uphold controversial policies after lower court losses”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“When Mueller Issues a Report, Trump May Try to Suppress Some of It”: Chris Strohm and Shannon Pettypiece of Bloomberg News have an article that begins, “The White House may try to block portions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report from being shared with Congress and the public in a fight that could end up before the Supreme Court.”

“U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Skakel case, question now is whether state will retry Kennedy cousin”: Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant has this report.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court won’t take case of Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel.”

And Joseph Ax of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court won’t reinstate murder conviction for Kennedy kin.”

“The Supreme Court Could Make Gerrymandering Worse: It likely won’t rule partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional; Instead, it may disallow independent redistricting commissions.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“The Case of the Notorious RBG: Examining the life and legend of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” Damon Root has this article in the February 2019 issue of Reason magazine.

“Top Trump Backer Financed Supreme Court Confirmation Fights Through Shadowy Network; Leonard Leo is the top judicial lobbyist in the country and a well-known booster of the president; But the reach of his influence is just starting to come into focus”: Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast has this report.

“Justice Ginsburg Will Miss Supreme Court Arguments”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments for first time as she recovers from cancer.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recovering from surgery, misses her first oral argument at Supreme Court.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg absent from Supreme Court while recovering from surgery, a first in her career.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to miss Supreme Court’s arguments, work from home.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Ginsburg missing Supreme Court arguments for 1st time.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court’s Ginsburg to miss Monday’s oral arguments.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Ginsburg Will Miss Arguments for First Time on Supreme Court.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Justice Ginsburg absent from Supreme Court oral argument for first time; A court spokeswoman said Ginsburg, who is 85, was working from home while recuperating from surgery.”

Eli Watkins and Ariane de Vogue of CNN report that “Ruth Bader Ginsburg not on bench for Supreme Court’s first day of arguments in 2019, court says.”

Brooke Singman and Bill Mears of Fox News report that “Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses 1st oral argument in Supreme Court tenure, after surgery.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Miss Supreme Court Arguments Following Cancer Surgery; The 85-year-old justice had never previously missed a day of arguments.”

“The ACA Case, Off the Wall Arguments, and a Look Back at Shelby County”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“OT2018 #13: ‘Beer For Lunch.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Dan Epps, Leah Litman, and guest Merritt McAlister, via this link.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases, but the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in three cases.

The Court issued a per curiam opinion in City of Escondido v. Emmons, No. 17-1660, summarily reversing in part and vacating in part the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Shoop v. Hill, No. 18-56, summarily vacating the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In Hester v. United States, No. 17-9082, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a concurrence in the denial of certiorari. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissent, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined, from the denial of certiorari.

And in Lance v. Sellers, No. 17-1382, Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined, from the denial of certiorari.

“We Should Be Able to Take Facebook to Court; A privacy violation is a real harm”: Neema Singh Guliani has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.