“State Courts and Constitutional Structure”: In the March 2019 issue of The Yale Law Journal, Justice Goodwin Liu of the Supreme Court of California has this review of Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton‘s book, “51 Imperfect Solutions: The Making of American Constitutional Law.”

And online at The Yale Law Journal Forum, Judge Sutton has published “A Response to Justice Goodwin Liu.”

Programming note: Greetings from Fayetteville, Arkansas, where in several hours I will be speaking at the 2019 Justice Donald L. Corbin Appellate Symposium. The program’s agenda can be accessed here. This afternoon, the program will feature a panel of Eighth Circuit judges, and Kannon Shanmugam will talk about something or the other to conclude day one of this two-day event.

I arrived in northwest Arkansas yesterday evening, and I am already enjoying my visit. Here’s a local courthouse photo I posted on Twitter yesterday. Due to my unfortunate inability to be in two places at the same time, this afternoon I will miss attending the Phillies home opener for the first time in many, many years. Apparently the team acquired a few noteworthy new players during the off-season.

Additional posts will appear here tonight. As always while I’m traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

“The Flood of Court Cases That Threaten Abortion: Republican presidents sought judges who could be counted on to oppose abortion; The voices of those judges come through clearly in cases now making their way to the Supreme Court.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“How Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Helped Preserve Abortion Rights”: Evan Thomas has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Why this BYU law professor is headed to the Supreme Court”: Kelsey Dallas of Deseret News has this report.

And Joe Hadfield of BYU News reports that “BYU Law’s pipeline to the U.S. Supreme Court continues.”

Congratulations to my friend Senior Ninth Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith for becoming a #SCOTUS feeder judge.

“Federal judge backs notion of ‘Trump judges,’ rules against Mark Janus after Supreme Court win”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“‘The Chief’: John Roberts’ journey from ‘sober puss’ to the pinnacle of American law.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Limiting Agency Power, a Goal of the Right, Gets Supreme Court Test”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “In veteran’s disability case, Supreme Court considers junking longtime deference to federal agencies.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court appears wary of taking on federal agencies over regulations.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court seems split over curbing federal agencies’ power.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court leans toward limiting federal agency power.”

Greg Stohr and Jennifer A Dlouhy of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Considers Reducing Regulatory Agency Power.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Justices weigh agency rulemaking power.”

Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire has an article headlined “Deference rule: Good sense or bureaucratic ‘sideswipe’?”

In commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial titled “The Court vs. the Regulatory State: The Justices can restore their power to check bureaucratic excess.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Supreme Court justice warns of the ‘greatest judicial power grab since Marbury v. Madison’; The Supreme Court looks eager to seize power, now that it is dominated by Bush and Trump appointees.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15.

“Supreme Court Sides With SEC in Broker False Statements Case; Court rules brokers can be liable for sending fraudulent investment pitches, even if they didn’t write them”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court backs SEC, safeguards investor-protection laws.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Buttresses SEC’s Power, Rules Against Banker.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lorenzo v. SEC, No. 17-1077, at this link.

“Grindr defeats appeal over harassment on gay dating app”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

And Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News Service reports that “Grindr Suit Quashed but Big Tech Controversy Endures.”

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

“Why Is Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Hot Again?” Michael C. Dorf has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Here’s the Fun You Missed Outside Tuesday’s Supreme Court Redistricting Hearing”: Bruce DePuyt of Maryland Matters has this report.

One lesson to be learned from the article is that one should not stand in the way of NPR’s Nina Totenberg during post-oral argument statements on the steps in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, as anyone who has regularly viewed such post-argument segments on C-SPAN would already know well.

“These two arguments make Americans less opposed to court packing; Putting more justices on the Supreme Court might not backfire as spectacularly as many expect”: Professors Amanda Driscoll and Michael J. Nelson have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Pushing for ‘heartbeat’ abortion bills, more states try to force Supreme Court to revisit Roe”: Rachana Pradhan of Politico has this report.

“Trump’s latest attack on Obamacare damages the Justice Department”: Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

Programming note: On Wednesday, I will be traveling to Fayetteville, Arkansas, where on Thursday I will be participating as a speaker at the 2019 Justice Donald L. Corbin Appellate Symposium. As a result, additional posts will not appear here until Wednesday evening. You can learn more about the 2019 Corbin Appellate Symposium in this earlier post.

At 10 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more rulings in argued cases. Once the Court posts those decisions online, you can access them via this link.

As always while I am traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

“Bristol-Myers, Pfizer defeat Eliquis bleeding risk lawsuits on appeal”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“White House Obamacare reversal made over Cabinet objections; The heads of the Justice Department and Health and Human Services Department opposed the unexpected switch in legal tactics”: Eliana Johnson and Burgess Everett of Politico have this report.

“Justices Display Divisions in New Cases on Voting Maps Warped by Politics”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Brett Kavanaugh the new player as Supreme Court returns to partisan gerrymandering.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Justice Kavanaugh may hold swing vote on partisan gerrymandering.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall will have an article headlined “Conservative Justices Hesitant About Judicial Remedy for Partisan Gerrymandering; Majority suggests problems are better solved by voter initiatives, state constitutions, politicians.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court divided on solution for heavily gerrymandered districts.”

Jeff Barker of The Baltimore Sun reports that “U.S. Supreme Court tackles Maryland gerrymandering case that’s split Democrats and Republicans.”

Brian Murphy of McClatchy DC reports that “Supreme Court appears split in NC gerrymander case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court questions courts’ role in partisan redistricting.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court divided on partisan electoral maps.”

Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Justices Question Suits Over Partisan Gerrymandering.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court appears likely to leave issue of partisan gerrymandering to states; The court heard challenges to congressional maps that locked in an advantage for Republicans in North Carolina and that gave an extra seat to Democrats in Maryland.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court conservatives question challenges of partisan gerrymandering.”

Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court warily weighs partisan gerrymandering.”

Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Still Appears Wary Of Doing Something About Partisan Gerrymandering; The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a closely watched case Tuesday that could have political consequences for decades.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Justices divided in cases revisiting partisan gerrymandering.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Kavanaugh Seems Conflicted On Partisan Gerrymandering At Supreme Court Arguments.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Kavanaugh Could Join the Liberal Justices to Rein In Partisan Gerrymandering. Seriously!”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “An unlikely alliance on the Supreme Court could end two of the nation’s worst gerrymanders; Will Kavanaugh and Kagan join forces to take down gerrymanders in North Carolina and Maryland?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422.

And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s Supreme Court oral argument in Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726.

“Supreme Court Rules Against Sailors Injured in Cole Attack”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “USS Cole victims suffer setback at Supreme Court.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court tosses $315 million award in USS Cole lawsuit.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court backs Sudan over American sailors in USS Cole bombing case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Tosses $315 Million Bombing Award Against Sudan.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court rules against USS Cole victims in Sudan lawsuit.”

And Zack Budryk of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules against USS Cole victims, backs Sudan in bombing lawsuit.”

“Businesses Target Scalia Opinion in Supreme Court Regulatory Fight”: Greg Stohr and Jennifer A Dlouhy of Bloomberg News have an article that begins, “A U.S. Supreme Court ruling written by conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia has become an unlikely target for business groups. And now the court may be poised to overturn it.”

“Bridget Bade, Trump nominee and ASU alumna, confirmed to 9th Circuit”: Alexis Egeland of The Arizona Republic has this report.

And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a news release titled “Senate Confirms US Magistrate Judge Bridget Bade to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

This afternoon, the U.S. Senate confirmed U.S. Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade to the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 78-to-21.

“Alaska Moose Hunter Wins Second Ruling at Supreme Court; Decision, which followed revival of suit, says federal government can’t stop him from using his hovercraft to reach hunting grounds; justices also toss $314 million terror-related judgment against Sudan”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Dan Joling of The Associated Press reports that “Alaska moose-hunter can ‘rev up’ his hovercraft, court rules.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Alaska moose hunter can ‘rev up his hovercraft,’ Supreme Court rules.”

Zack Budryk of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules Alaska man can hunt moose on hovercraft.”

And Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire reports that “Moose hunter can use his hovercraft.”

“President Trump can block Twitter users, Department of Justice lawyer argues”: Stephen Rex Brown of The New York Daily News has this report.

William Cummings of USA Today reports that “When Trump blocks users on Twitter, he does it himself, DOJ lawyer says.”

Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court tilts against Trump in Twitter fight.”

Brendan Pierson of Reuters has an article headlined “Can Trump block Twitter users whose views he dislikes? U.S. Appeals Court skeptical.”

Chris Dolmetsch of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump’s Move to Throw Out Twitter-Blocking Suit Scrutinized.”

Erica Orden of CNN reports that “Trump tweets in official capacity, but blocking users is a personal matter, DOJ argues in court.”

And Adam Klasfeld of Courthouse News Service reports that “Trump, Ever-Tweeting, Makes Curious Case for Privacy.”

“NC abortion law is unconstitutional, federal court rules”: Will Doran of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.

Emery P. Dalesio of The Associated Press reports that “North Carolina’s 20-week abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.”

And Jonathan Allen of Reuters reports that “Federal judge ends North Carolina ban on abortions after 20 weeks.”

“Can President Trump block his critics on Twitter? Federal appeals court weighs that issue.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report on an appeal argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

You can access the oral argument audio via this link (33.1 MB mp3 audio file).

“Do agencies have the final say on regs?” Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court is gearing up for arguments in a case that could change a key tenet of administrative law: the degree of deference federal agencies get from the courts. It’s a wonky but important issue that arises often in environmental litigation, meaning court watchers from industry, academia and advocacy groups alike are closely tracking the Wednesday showdown in Kisor v. Wilkie.”

“Is Justice Kavanaugh in Play in the Partisan Gerrymandering Cases? Or is that Too ‘Big’ of a ‘Lift’?” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“The Anti-Constitutionality of Court-Packing”: Neil Siegel has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

“Trump’s Unyielding Religious Exemptions from the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement Are Unconstitutional”: Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Supreme Court shows divisions over gerrymandering; Roberts, Kavanaugh appear conflicted”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Democrats Pivot Hard to Health Care After Trump Moves to Strike Down Affordable Care Act”: Robert Pear and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times have this report.

“St. Joan Antida High School sues Milwaukee Public Schools over student busing”: Back in March 2017, Erin Richards of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had an article that begins, “A Milwaukee Catholic high school is suing Milwaukee Public Schools for denying busing to 70 students who should qualify for district-funded transportation under state law, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.”

Yesterday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this decision in that case.

Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett joined. And Milwaukee-based Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes issued a dissenting opinion.

“Ford Wins Appeal of Sudden Acceleration Class Suit”: Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Christian Nationalism and the Bladensburg Cross”: Caroline Mala Corbin has this post at the “Take Care” blog.