“Antonin Scalia’s son says expanding Supreme Court is ‘maybe an argument worth taking seriously'”: Samuel Chamberlain of Fox News has this report.

And in more recent coverage, “Antonin Scalia’s son does not like headline of Fox News article about his court-packing views.”

“Court: Victims can’t make a federal case out of police who stole their money.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

And Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service has an article headlined “Only 9th Circuit Sympathy in Case of Missing Cop Seizure.”

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

Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond M. Kethledge issues Chevron deference dissent: You can access yesterday’s dissenting opinion at this link.

Partially divided Fifth Circuit panel overturns award for nearly $1.5 million in lost earnings awarded to former NBA player David West from the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court Ducks Class-Action Ruling on Distribution of Google Settlement Funds; High court sidesteps decision on the merits of cy pres awards because it wasn’t clear whether the lead plaintiffs had suffered any harm from Google”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court jeopardizes Google settlement in internet privacy case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Orders New Look at Privacy Suit Settled by Google.”

Emily Birnbaum of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court punts Google privacy settlement questions to lower court.”

Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Blocks Google Settlement on Standing Issue.”

And in commentary, online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court Isn’t Sold on the Harms of Big Tech; The justices’ response to a class-action lawsuit against Google is a step toward making regulation more difficult.”

“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.

“Supreme Court: Navy product manufacturers liable for asbestos exposure in sailors’ deaths.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Immigrants Facing Deportation Must Be Detained After Release From Criminal Custody, Justices Rule”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says government has broad authority when detaining some immigrants.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds federal power to detain and deport immigrants for long-past crimes.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Approves Mandatory Detention of Some Immigrants During Deportation Hearings; Decision requires authorities to detain aliens facing deportation at any point following release from prison for range of offenses.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Divided Supreme Court makes it easier to detain noncitizens with criminal records.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds ICE detention without bail for serious criminals.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules against immigrants in detention case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Trump gets a U.S. Supreme Court victory on immigration detention.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Trump Administration in Deportation Case.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sides with Trump in immigrant detention dispute.”

In commentary, Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Another Ninth Circuit Reversal: The Supreme Court sides with Congress on criminal alien detention.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Supreme Court Disregards Due Process, Allows ICE to Detain Certain Immigrants Indefinitely.”

“Appeals Court Judges Appear Skeptical of Emoluments Case Against Trump”: Sharon LaFraniere of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Jonathan O’Connell of The Washington Post report that “Judges seem skeptical Trump is illegally profiting from his D.C. hotel.”

Jeff Barker of The Baltimore Sun reports that “Under sharp questioning, Maryland tries to sustain suit over Trump business dealings.”

Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Judges grill lawyers in suit over Trump’s Washington hotel.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Judges lean toward Trump in hotel ’emoluments’ case.”

Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Emoluments Challengers Face Skeptical Appeals Court Panel.”

Ellie Kaufman of CNN reports that “DC attorney general says he’ll fight Trump hotel case to Supreme Court.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Lawsuit accusing Trump of violating Constitution gets hostile reception.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Justice Department And Trump’s Lawyers Argue No One Should Be Able To Sue Him For Profiting From His Hotel.”

And Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fourth Circuit Appears Skeptical of Trump Emoluments Case.”

Today, these two related appeals were argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. and Senior Circuit Judge Dennis W. Shedd. You can access the oral argument audio here and here.

“Supreme Court to hear case on racial bias in jury selection”: Jeff Amy and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press have this report.

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment titled “Supreme Court To Hear Curtis Flowers Case After Podcast Investigation.” The podcast investigation was season two of American Public Media’s “In The Dark.”

“Is the Court Tracking Right or Roberts Left?” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Why court-packing is a really bad idea”: Columnist Jennifer Rubin has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The real reason the Trump administration is constantly losing in court”: Fred Barbash and Deanna Paul of The Washington Post have an article that begins, “Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times over the past two years, an extraordinary record of legal defeat that has stymied large parts of the president’s agenda on the environment, immigration and other matters.”

“Supreme Court Weighs Race Challenge to Virginia Voting Map”: 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 divided over Virginia redistricting case and question of racial discrimination.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court seems divided on Virginia’s use of race to draw election districts.”

In today’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Graham Moomaw has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court hears Virginia redistricting case, with control of House of Delegates at stake.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court struggles with Virginia redistricting case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs Virginia racial dispute over electoral maps.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court takes on racial gerrymander claim in Virginia.”

And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The fate of one of America’s worst gerrymanders appears to rest in Clarence Thomas’ hands; It’s strange bedfellows day at the Supreme Court of the United States.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, No. 18-281.

“Trump rejects idea of expanding U.S. Supreme Court”: Ginger Gibson of Reuters has this report.

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

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in various respects in Nielsen v. Preap, No. 16-1363. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas issued an opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Breyer announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined, in Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined. And Justice Kavanaugh issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link. Note: In the version of this decision that the Supreme Court originally posted online, Justice Breyer’s opinion is identified internally in the document as the “Opinion of the Court,” which is incorrect. Presumably this will be corrected before long.

“Court: Alabama must disclose lethal injection execution protocol.” Melissa Brown of The Montgomery Advertiser has this report.

Ivana Hrynkiw of Alabama Media Group has an article headlined “Appeals court: Alabama must release execution protocol.”

And Jeff Martin of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Alabama can’t keep its lethal injection method secret.”

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

“Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against K-State’s attempts to throw out Title IX lawsuits”: Kaylie Mclaughlin and Molly Hackett of The Kansas State Collegian have this report.

And Jon Parton of Courthouse News Service reports that “Kansas State University Can’t Dodge Title IX Lawsuit.”

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

Unanimous three-judge Eighth Circuit panel rejects due process challenge to $250,000 punitive damage award accompanied by $1 compensatory damage award: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“After six trials for same crime, Curtis Flowers’ ‘extraordinary’ case gets Supreme Court hearing”: Alissa Zhu of The Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi has this report.

And Cathy Wurzer of Minnesota Public Radio News reports that “The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case of Curtis Flowers.”

“‘Obama judges?’ ‘Trump judges?’ Border emergency lawsuits could expose or defuse partisan differences.” Richard Wolf has this front page article in today’s edition of USA Today.

“Would the Green New Deal Survive the Supreme Court? Chief Justice John Roberts may have the final say on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious plan to fight global warming.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“From Triumph To Tragedy, ‘First’ Tells Story Of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Lee Malvo, the Washington-Area Sniper”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to examine whether unanimous juries are required for criminal convictions.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide if insanity defense and unanimous jury are required nationwide.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Examine Insanity Defense, Need for Jury Unanimity; Cases for next term to consider key questions of criminal law, including juvenile sentencing.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court will decide if convicted sniper in 2002 District of Columbia-area killings can get new sentence.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to review life sentence of D.C. sniper.”

Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear opposition to new sentencing for Beltway sniper.”

Matt Sledge and Gordon Russell of The New Orleans Advocate report that “U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider split jury verdicts, prompted by New Orleans case.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “DC-area sniper shootings case to have Supreme Court hearing.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court takes up sentencing appeal in ‘D.C. Sniper’ case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has reports headlined “Supreme Court Will Hear Case Involving Convicted D.C.-Area Sniper” and “Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts Draw Review by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court to consider new sentence for D.C.-area sniper Lee Boyd Malvo; Malvo, sentenced to life in prison for his role in a series of shootings that killed 10 people, was 17 at the time the crimes were committed.”

Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court agrees to take up DC sniper case.”

Brooke Singman of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court agrees to review case of surviving DC sniper.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill has reports headlined “Supreme Court agrees to review if DC sniper should get a new sentence” and “Supreme Court to consider state laws abolishing the insanity defense.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Juvenile Justice Legacy Is Under Assault in the D.C. Sniper Case.”

“An Intimate Portrait of Sandra Day O’Connor, First Woman on the Supreme Court”: Jeffrey Toobin will have this review of Evan Thomas’s new book — “First: Sandra Day O’Connor” — on the cover of this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Sunday Book Review.

“News of a death penalty moratorium elicits a muted reaction at San Quentin”: Maria L. La Ganga has this front page article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.