“Scoop: Trump ‘saving’ Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat.” Jonathan Swan and Sam Baker have this post at Axios.

“‘The Chief’ — What It Actually Tells Us About John Roberts’s Vote in the Initial ACA Case”: Mark Tushnet had this post yesterday at the “Balkinization” blog.

And today at that blog, Neil Siegel has a post titled “In Defense of the Chief Justice’s Execution of His Responsibilities in NFIB v. Sebelius.”

“Noah Feldman and Neil Siegel on Court-Packing: Two prominent liberal constitutional law scholars warn against the dangers of court-packing.” Ilya Somin has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The Fifth Circuit Abandons The Rule Of Law To Spite A Transgender Inmate”: Max Kennerly has this post at his “Litigation & Trial” blog.

“Koch group won’t get broader appeals court review in donor secrecy fight; The Americans for Prosperity Foundation has been fighting a California requirement to disclose its largest donors”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report on an order denying rehearing en banc, the dissent therefrom, and a response to that dissent from the original three-judge panel that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on Friday.

“John Roberts and seven coconspirators worked together to steal millions of dollars’ worth of sensitive military equipment from a local army base and sell it on eBay.” So explains an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued on Friday.

“Nothing is more corrosive to public confidence in our criminal justice system than the perception that there are two different legal standards — one for the powerful, the popular, and the well-connected, and another for everyone else.” So begins a concurring opinion that Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho issued on Friday.

“Appeals court gives new life to Boston Calling case”: Maria Cramer and Danny McDonald of The Boston Globe have this report.

And Jonathan Ng of The Boston Herald reports that “Walsh officials may face new trial after Fed court reverses Boston Calling decision.”

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

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: On Second Thought . . . .” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“A plea to ‘senior’ judges”: Columnist Hugh Hewitt has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Georgia Is Latest State to Pass Fetal Heartbeat Bill as Part of Growing Trend”: Sarah Mervosh of The New York Times has this report.

In yesterday’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Maya T. Prabhu had a front page article headlined “Georgia’s anti-abortion ‘heartbeat bill’ heads to governor’s desk.”

Ben Nadler of The Associated Press reports that “‘Heartbeat’ abortion ban heads to Georgia governor’s desk.”

Kim Chandler of The Associated Press reports that “Alabama lawmakers seek ban on almost all abortions.”

And Emily Shugerman of The Daily Beast has an article headlined “Heartbeat Abortion Bills Were Once a Fringe Idea. Could They Overturn Roe v. Wade? A third state is poised to enact a heartbeat bill. Ten more are considering them.”

“Why Did Brett Kavanaugh Change His Mind About the Rights of Religious Minorities in the Execution Chamber?” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Kavanaugh and Kagan Find Common Ground on Gerrymanders; And maybe court packing isn’t as crazy as it sounds”: Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

“Chief Justice Roberts’s delicate seat at the center of a divided Supreme Court”: Online at The Washington Post, law professor Geoffrey R. Stone has this review of Joan Biskupic’s new book, “The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts.”

Sorry, Tampa Bay Buccaneers — “On Monday, the public will be able to access the courtroom it pays for.” So writes Fifth Circuit Judge Gregg J. Costa in an order issued Friday.

The order begins:

Claimant ID 100246928 — a/k/a the Tampa Bay Buccaneers — asks this court to seal the courtroom where the team will argue its appeal on April 1. It also wants to bar public access to the recording of the argument that this court routinely makes available on its website.

Friday’s order denied both of these requests.

“2 death row inmates similar requests, but different results”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Death row inmates Patrick Murphy and Domineque Ray each turned to courts recently with a similar plea: Halt my execution if the state won’t let a spiritual adviser of my faith accompany me into the execution chamber.”

“Prisoners not entitled to gender reassignment surgery: U.S. appeals court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today. Circuit Judge James C. Ho wrote the majority opinion.

“Nebraska Supreme Court upholds guilty verdict of man convicted in assisted-suicide case”: Paul Hammel of The Omaha World-Herald has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Nebraska issued today.

“The next City Council will decide if city should fight for topless ban at Supreme Court”: Nick Coltrain of The Fort Collins Coloradoan has an article that begins, “It will be up to the next Fort Collins City Council whether to pursue a U.S. Supreme Court review of the city’s ban on topless women in public.”

My earlier coverage of the Tenth Circuit’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Contracts, Constitutions, and Getting the Interpretation-Construction Distinction Right”: Law professor Gregory Klass has posted this article on SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“If SCOTUS Refuses to Act on Partisan Gerrymandering, State Supreme Courts Offer a Path to Reform”: Ben Williams has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“How Appealing” gets results . . . eventually: A reader emails:

A few weeks ago, you blogged about Justice Breyer’s opinion in Washington State v. Cougar Den being mislabeled as the opinion of the court. I too was surprised by the apparent error, and even more surprised that the Court hadn’t corrected it by the end of the day. So, I called the Reporter of Decisions at the Supreme Court yesterday, who confirmed that the opinion had indeed been mislabeled. Apparently he hadn’t heard of the mistake from anyone else. The corrected opinion has now been posted here.

My original post noting the error can be accessed here.

Thanks so very much to the reader in question for achieving this correction and for letting me know.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg beer? Guilty, says Sam Adams, giving new meaning to ‘bar exam.'” Zlati Meyer of USA Today has this report.

“Why William Barr should resign in protest over Trump’s Obamacare move”: Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has this essay online at CNN.

“No News Is Bad News for Civil Discourse: The disappearance of local newspapers is making national politics more polarized.” Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Totenator Vs. Terminator”: This short audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.” This blog’s earlier coverage can be accessed here.

“‘I’m a blue-collar kid’: Brian Hagedorn charted a course to dream big and make a difference.” Molly Beck has this front page article in today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

And Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article headlined “‘She’s not high drama’: Colleagues describe Lisa Neubauer as dispassionate, nonpartisan.”

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeal in Troy ballot-fraud lawsuit”: Kenneth C. Crowe II of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.

Sixth Circuit judges tangle over when to certify state-law questions to state supreme courts: Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this order, accompanied by opinions concurring in, dissenting from, and respecting that court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

As the opinions dissenting from and respecting the denial of rehearing en banc demonstrate, the Sixth Circuit’s Trump appointees appear to have distinct views on this subject.

“2 California Supreme Court justices say the state’s death penalty system doesn’t work”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “California Supreme Court justices question state’s death penalty.”

Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press reports that “California justice calls death penalty system dysfunctional.”

Steve Gorman of Reuters reports that “Two California Supreme Court justices decry death penalty as ‘dysfunctional.’”

And at the “At the Lectern” blog, David Ettinger has a post titled “Supreme Court affirms death penalty for murder of elderly couple; concurrence criticizes California’s death penalty system.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link, and you can access directly the concurring opinion of Justice Goodwin Liu by clicking here.

“Trump Heads to an Obamacare Rematch With John Roberts: The chief justice saved the Affordable Care Act once; Why would a new case make him change his mind?” Ramesh Ponnuru has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Online at The New York Times, law professor Nicholas Bagley has an essay titled “Why Trump’s New Push to Kill Obamacare Is So Alarming: It’s not just the potential damage to the health care system and the people who depend on it; It’s also the threat, in the administration’s legal logic, to the rule of law.”

And in related news coverage, in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Robert Pear had a front page article headlined “Trump Sided With Mulvaney in Push to Nullify Health Law.”

“Anticipation builds as Supreme Court sits on major abortion access case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Don’t Pack the Supreme Court, Democrats. You’d Live to Regret It. There are ways to pay back Republicans for rebuffing Merrick Garland that wouldn’t subvert the rule of law.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court Stays Execution of Buddhist Inmate”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Keri Blakinger of The Houston Chronicle reports that “‘Texas 7’ lookout man gets last-minute stay of execution.”

Jennifer Emily of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Supreme Court blocks execution of Texas 7 lookout.”

Juan A. Lozano and Michael Graczyk of The Associated Press report that “‘Texas 7’ prison-break gang member gets execution reprieve.”

Jolie McCullough of The Texas Tribune reports that “In last-minute ruling, U.S. Supreme Court stops execution of ‘Texas Seven’ prisoner; Patrick Murphy was one of the escaped convicts sentenced to death for the murder of Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins during a robbery; The high court stopped his execution because Texas officials wouldn’t let a Buddhist priest into the death chamber with him.”

And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court suddenly developed a sense of basic human decency about religious liberty; Less than two months after an egregious assault on a Muslim inmate’s religious freedom, the Supreme Court reverses course.”

You can access this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“At Last, Unpublished Superior Court Opinions Can Be Cited. Now What? Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved a long-gestating rule change that will allow lawyers to cite unpublished state Superior Court memorandum opinions for their persuasive value.” Zack Needles of The Legal Intelligencer has this article in which I am quoted.