“Flint water crisis lawsuit allowed to move forward after appeal”: Zahra Ahmad of The Flint (Mich.) Journal has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued Friday.

“The other abortion ban: I wanted to provide abortions for my patients; My med school wouldn’t teach me how.” Stephanie Ho has this essay in the Outlook section of today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Fighting a Tort Plague: Should a drug company be punished for following FDA rules?” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Hetero employees can’t claim reverse discrimination when federal law doesn’t shield gays, lesbians — judge”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight had this post just under one year ago.

Now, according to a new report from Daniel Wiessner of Reuters headlined “5th Circuit to weigh claims that worker was fired for being straight” (subscription required for full access), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument of the former employee’s appeal on Wednesday. The three-judge panel assigned to hear and decide the case consists of Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones, Catharina Haynes, and Andrew S. Oldham.

“House Democrats Hire New Top Lawyer To Defend Affordable Care Act”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment on Friday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts, a Rock, and a Hard Place: How will the chief justice reconcile his conservatism with his institutionalism in a divided court?” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick and her guest, Joan Biskupic of CNN.

Biskupic’s new book — “The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts” — has an official publication date of March 26, 2019.

“Supreme Court to weigh Broadcom bid to end shareholder suit”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“SCOTUS to review trademark that suggests F-word in 1st Amendment case against patent office”: Andrew Blake of The Washington Times has this report.

“WVa AG’s help sought in Supreme Court impeachment appeal”: John Raby of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Takes Up New Cases on Partisan Gerrymandering”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear cases on partisan gerrymandering.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide on partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Again to Consider Partisan Gerrymandering; High court will hear cases from North Carolina, Maryland after disposing of two other cases last term on procedural grounds.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court agrees to wade into politically explosive issue of election maps drawn for partisan advantage.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to take up partisan gerrymandering, again.”

In today’s edition of The Baltimore Sun, Luke Broadwater and Pamela Wood have a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Maryland, North Carolina cases on congressional district boundaries.”

In today’s edition of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, Will Doran has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court will hear NC gerrymandering case soon, potentially breaking new legal ground.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court to take new look at partisan electoral districts.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court takes up politically charged electoral map disputes.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court to Weigh Barring Challenges to Partisan Gerrymanders.”

Ariane de Vogue and Sophie Tatum of CNN report that “Supreme Court will hear partisan gerrymandering cases in March.”

Steven Shepard of Politico reports that “Supreme Court to take on partisan gerrymandering this year; The court will hear arguments over congressional maps in Maryland and North Carolina that lower courts have struck down.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to take up gerrymandering cases.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Will, Again, Consider If Redistricting Decisions Can Be So Partisan That They’re Illegal.”

“The Latest Front Against Civil Rights: The law of ‘disparate impact’ isn’t broken; There’s no need for Donald Trump to rewrite it.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands”: Robert Barnes has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump administration’s effort to restrict vulgar trademarks.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to hear challenge to ban on profane trademarks.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Vulgar Trademarks Get U.S. Supreme Court Review in Speech Clash.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner had a post titled “F-Bombs Coming to Supreme Court for Review of Government Ban on Scandalous Trademarks; It’s now time for the nine justices to hear about the ‘FUCT’ clothing brand.”

“Supreme Court weighs whether to hear first challenge to Roe vs. Wade since Kavanaugh joined bench”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Restriction on transgender troops serving in military can stand for now, D.C. federal appeals court rules”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf and Tom Vanden Brook of USA Today report that “Federal appeals court sides with Trump on military transgender ban, but injunctions remain in place.”

Alex Swoyer and Carlo Muñoz of The Washington Times report that “Appeals court gives Trump a win on transgender military service.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court sides with Trump in transgender military case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. court rules for Trump on transgender military limits.”

Erik Larson of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Administration Wins Ruling in Transgender-Ban Lawsuit.”

Rebecca Kheel of The Hill reports that “Appeals court sides with Trump on transgender military ban.”

Dominic Holden and Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News report that “A Court Just Ruled Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Should Take Effect, But It Won’t Change Anything Yet.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Federal Judges Who Ruled in Favor of Trump’s Trans Ban Don’t Understand What It Means to Be Trans.”

You can access today’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in four new cases and postponed the question of jurisdiction in two direct appeals.

“A Conversation with Chief Judge Stephen Louis A. Dillard”: This interview appears in the December 2018 issue of the Georgia Bar Journal.

“Trump’s Deportation Case, Job-Bias Disputes Greet Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“A qualified en-banc win on Ohio ACCA/career-offender predicates “: The “Sixth Circuit Blog” has this post discussing a divided en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

“17 attorneys general are appealing the court decision overturning Obamacare; Trump won’t defend the Affordable Care Act. So these Democrats are stepping in”: Sarah Kliff of Vox has this report.

“Supreme Court’s decision on obsolete liquor laws may provide clarity for a family in need; When an obsolete law is on the books, a small constituency can block its repeal; Sometimes all you can do is hope a court will strike it down”: Law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds has this essay online at USA Today.

“This Man’s Protest Is Free Speech. He’s Going to Prison. The federal courts mistakenly see fraud instead of a man expressing his political beliefs.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Luncheon Debate: Resolved — The Supreme Court Should Overrule Qualified Immunity.” The Federalist Society has posted this video on YouTube.

“Michael Dorf, Precedent, and the Original Meaning”: Mike Rappaport has this post at the “Law and Liberty” blog.

New law blog give-away idea — oral arguments? At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “New(ish) Lawyers in Santa Barbara Interested in Arguing a Fun First Amendment Cal. Superior Court Motion?“

“Ninth Circuit Grants Rehearing en Banc to Reconsider Voting Rights Challenge to Arizona Law on Absentee Ballot ‘Harvesting’ and Counting Ballots Cast in Wrong Precincts”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Justice Department won’t take Arpaio fight to SCOTUS”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“Federal Courts May Feel Pinch of Government Shutdown Soon; Judiciary faces possible shortage of funding for staffers, programs”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has an article that begins, “The federal courts have largely maintained normal operations during the current government shutdown so far, but that could change quickly if the stalemate lasts beyond next week.”

“What Robert Mueller’s Peculiar Writing Style Tells Us About His Larger Legal Gambit”: Thomas Deans has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Trump administration considers rollback of anti-discrimination rules”: Laura Meckler and Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post have an article that begins, “The Trump administration is considering a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules against discrimination in education, housing and other aspects of American life, people familiar with the discussions said.”

“What GOP senators should make their top priority”: Columnist Hugh Hewitt has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Liquor store war: Should a giant wine and spirits retailer be subject to state residency requirements?” Mark Walsh has this article in the January/February 2019 issue of ABA Journal magazine.

“A Call to Arms at the Supreme Court: Conservative judges worry that the Second Amendment has become ‘a second-class right.'” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Appeals court rebukes federal government in ‘no-fly’ case, ruling it owes millions in legal fees”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Stanford graduate student mistakenly put on no-fly list gets redemption.”

And Helen Christophi of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Reverses Too-Small Award for Attorneys on ‘No-Fly’ Case.”

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

“Ninth Circuit Civics Contest Focuses on the Fourth Amendment in the 21st Century”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today.

“Trump blames court ruling for preventing DACA deal”: Ian Kullgren of Politico has this report.