“Clarence Thomas Breaks a Three-Year Silence at Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court examination of jury discrimination prompts rare question from Clarence Thomas.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears set to overturn Mississippi murder case based on racial bias.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Racial Bias in Jury Selection for Murder Case; Prosecutor dismissed at least 41 of 43 potential African-American jurors without explanation at the trials.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has reports headlined “Six trials for same murders: Supreme Court frowns on racial jury selection tactics of Mississippi prosecutor” and “Justice Clarence Thomas breaks three-year silence in Mississippi case about racial bias in jury selection.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justice Thomas breaks three-year silence during oral argument; Asked question in case on racial bias in jury selection.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court troubled by jury selection bias in Mississippi.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Justice Thomas speaks as U.S. top court confronts racial bias in jury selection.”

Greg Stohr and Jordan Rubin of Bloomberg News report that “Thomas Asks Rare Question in Argument on Bias in Jury Selection.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Justice Thomas breaks three-year bench silence in Supreme Court death penalty case; The case involved an inmate who said the prosecutor repeatedly kicked black people off the jury when he was tried for the same murders.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Racial bias in jury selection case prompts rare question from Justice Clarence Thomas.” And Joan Biskupic of CNN has an article headlined “Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question for the first time in 3 years — here’s why.”

Adam Shaw of Fox News reports that “Clarence Thomas makes rare intervention during Supreme Court arguments.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Thomas asks question for second time in a decade at Supreme Court.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Trials of Mississippi.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Justices Seem Incredulous At Repeated Racial Bias In Jury Selection.”

Madeleine Baran and Parker Yesko of American Public Media Reports have an article headlined “Kavanaugh may be key to freeing Curtis Flowers; At oral arguments, questions from the Supreme Court’s newest justice — and a possible swing vote — seemed to side with the Mississippi death row inmate’s claim that he was the victim of racial discrimination in jury selection.”

And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Supreme Court lights up racist prosecutor, and even the conservative justices joined in; Even Justice Alito threw shade at a blatantly racist prosecutor.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17-9572.

“Texas Senate confirms Brett Busby for Supreme Court post; Busby, a Republican judge and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, served on an appellate court in Houston until voters rejected him in November as part of a Democratic sweep”: Emma Platoff of The Texas Tribune has this report. It is always nice to have another “How Appealing” reader join, or in this case return to, the appellate judiciary.

“Chodorow: Opponents Of Clergy Housing Allowance Should Turn To Congress And The IRS After 7th Circuit’s Rejection Of Establishment Clause Challenge.” Paul Caron has this post at his “TaxProf Blog.”

“Second-Class Justice in the Military: Very few court-martial appeals can make it to the Supreme Court; Congress should fix that.” Eugene R. Fidell and law professor Stephen I. Vladeck have this essay online at The New York Times.

“Trump’s 2 Supreme Court picks on opposite sides in 2 cases”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Nina Totenberg of NPR reports that “Gorsuch Provides Decisive 5th Vote In Case Interpreting Treaty With Indian Tribe.”

“Sandra Day O’Connor reflects on life before, during and after the Supreme Court”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

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

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, the Court issued a per curiam opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Can a State Abolish the Insanity Defense? The Supreme Court will decide four new criminal-justice cases without strong partisan valence.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“The institutional (and, possibly, constitutional) problems with treating published panel orders as binding on all subsequent panels are significant and, at a minimum, worthy of en banc review.” So writes Circuit Judge Jill A. Pryor, the author of one of three separate dissents from the Eleventh Circuit‘s denial of rehearing en banc yesterday in United States v. St. Hubert.

Together with the three opinions concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, yesterday’s Eleventh Circuit denial of rehearing en banc totals 90 pages.

“Cleveland FBI agent did not mislead federal judge in search warrant in trade-secrets case, appeals court rules”: Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.