“Supreme Court’s conservative-liberal rift exposed in arbitration decision favoring company over workers”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“U.S. top court buttresses company power to arbitrate disputes”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Businesses, Curbs Class Arbitration.”

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of businesses seeking to block class-action lawsuits.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor also issued dissenting opinions. And Justice Elena Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined in full and Justice Sotomayor joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Trump says he’ll turn to Supreme Court if Congress begins impeachment”: Katie Galioto of Politico has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Death Drive: Five conservative justices are bent on defending a policy that is unpopular, expensive, and cruel.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Roberts Wants to Ignore Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Bias Again; The Supreme Court seems likely to accept the administration’s cover story and allow a citizenship question on the census”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“The Supreme Court Is Poised to Shred Its Credibility to Let Trump Rig the Census”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Constitutionality of Colorado large-capacity magazine ban to be decided in state’s highest court; Lawmakers passed the reform in the wake of the Aurora theater shooting”: Elise Schmelzer of The Denver Post has this report.

“Twice victorious at Supreme Court, Singer Island man prepares for another fight locally”: Andrew Lofholm of NBC affiliate WPTV of West Palm Beach, Florida has a report that begins, “You might remember the name, Fane Lozeman. He has a long history of taking on Riviera Beach and winning, including twice at the United States Supreme Court. Lozeman is back at Riviera Beach City Hall with another fight.”

“Puerto Rico Board Takes Fight Over Members to Supreme Court”: Michelle Kaske of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Can an unconscious suspect consent to a blood draw? Supreme Court says maybe so, maybe not.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court struggles with Wisconsin drunken driving law.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court stumped by the case of the unconscious drunken driver.”

And earlier, Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that “A Wisconsin DUI case in which police drew blood from an unconscious man is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210.

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Counting to five.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Sotomayor takes liberal lead in challenging admin on census”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Judge Posner, Title VII and Why Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Discrimination Based on ‘Sex'”: Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Chalking Tires and the Fourth Amendment: A markedly interesting case from the Sixth Circuit.” Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“How John Roberts Is Shaping the Supreme Court’s Newly Savage Death Penalty Jurisprudence”: Steven V. Mazie has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“On Census Citizenship Question, Supreme Court’s Conservatives Appear United”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Mark Berman of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court’s conservatives appear likely to let Trump add citizenship question to 2020 Census.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court conservatives appear ready to OK Trump’s census citizenship question.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Reveals Deep Divisions on 2020 Census Citizenship Question; High court’s conservative majority appears sympathetic to Trump administration; liberal justices voice opposition.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court looks likely to back Trump administration on adding citizenship question to 2020 census.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Justice Sotomayor: Hispanics have ‘rational fear’ of Trump administration citizenship question.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court hears arguments over citizenship question on census.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Trump on track for Supreme Court victory on census citizenship question.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Signals Support for Trump’s Census Citizenship Question.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court conservatives appear to lean toward allowing citizenship question on census.”

Josh Gerstein and Ted Hesson of Politico report that “Supreme Court divided on citizenship question for census.”

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Conservative justices signal willingness to allow Trump’s census citizenship question.”

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: The Court today issued a per curiam decision dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, No. 18-459. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Federal appeals court says tire-chalking by parking enforcement officers is unconstitutional”: Fred Barbash of The Washington Post has this report.

Roberto Acosta of MLive reports that “Appeals court rules chalking tires violates Fourth Amendment.”

Ed White of The Associated Press has a report headlined “A win for people who park too long: Tire marking thrown out.”

Alex Johnson of NBC News reports that “Chalking tires to enforce parking rules is unconstitutional, court finds; Marking your tires with chalk is trespassing, not law enforcement, the federal appeals panel said in a Michigan case.”

And Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Sixth Circuit Rules Against ‘Chalking’ of Parked Cars.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“What the Census Case Will Say About the Supreme Court: Can the Trump administration add a citizenship question? The answer will be a test of the court’s politicization.” Law professor William W. Buzbee has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court to decide whether gay, transgender workers are protected by anti-discrimination laws”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to rule on workplace bias against gay and transgender employees.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Rule on Gay, Transgender Employment Rights; High court to consider whether civil rights law bars workplace discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, gender identity.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court agrees to decide if sexual orientation, gender identity should get federal job protection.”

Alex Swoyer and Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court grants review in LGBTQ employment discrimination cases.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to take up LGBT job discrimination cases.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court takes up major gay, transgender job discrimination cases.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to Review Bias Lawsuits by Gay, Transgender Workers.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court to rule whether civil rights law bans discrimination against LGBTQ employees; The question has divided the nation’s lower courts.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court will take up LGBT employee discrimination cases next term.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court to take up cases on gay and transgender rights in the workplace.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to consider workplace discrimination of LGBTQ community.”

And Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Employers Can Discriminate Against LGBT Employees; The court will look at whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination ‘on the basis of sex,’ applies to LGBT individuals.”

“Supreme Court Can Interpret ‘Sex’ in Many Ways; In three gay- and trans-rights cases, the justices will have to weigh a law’s text versus its purpose — and politics will have its say”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s New LGBTQ Cases Could Demolish Sex Discrimination Law as We Know It.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The absolute worst case scenario in the Supreme Court’s new anti-LGBTQ cases; A lot more than LGBTQ rights are potentially on the chopping block.”

“Trump’s Census Citizenship Question Faces Test in Supreme Court Clash”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“It’s confidential: Supreme Court decision on Freedom of Information Act hinges on one word.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Case Explores Privacy of Business Data in Food-Stamp Case; Industry pushed back when South Dakota newspaper sought per-store payouts under program from U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

Jonathan Ellis of The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota reports that “Justices grapple with whether food stamp payments are public records.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Top court skeptical of paper’s argument over food stamp data.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court could limit access to business data; Justices heard arguments on Monday in the case, which pits business groups against news organizations and open-government advocates.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481.

“The Supreme Court Could Shift Power to Republicans for the Next Decade; The Trump administration’s census citizenship question comes before the court on Tuesday”: Ari Berman of Mother Jones has this report.

“United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims announces Live Streaming of Oral arguments beginning tomorrow at 10am April 23, 2019”: So reads the title of an email that I received moments ago from Chief Judge Robert N. Davis of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Here is the full text of the email itself (hyperlinks in original):

As the Chief Judge of the United State Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims I wanted to bring a recent and exciting development to your readers’ attention. Our Court has launched a YouTube channel where we will be live streaming all our oral arguments starting April 23, 2019. As the youngest federal Court, and one with a national jurisdiction, we have always made significant efforts to educate, be transparent and accessible to the public.

To that end, for many years now, our electronic case filing system has allowed free public access to all filings and decisions from our Court. Apart from posting all our orders and decisions, we have had same-day audio of all oral arguments. And now we are pleased to announce that live streaming of oral arguments begins tomorrow.

We hope this will bring a new level of accessibility to the public. We also hope that this will be useful to appellate practitioners. Our Court continues to explore unique and exciting areas of the law. Most recently we have grappled with certifying class actions in an appellate setting following a widely covered Federal Circuit decision. On the administrative law front, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to two cases involving our Court — Kisor v. Wilkie, and Gray v. Wilkie.

I thought you might want to share this news with your readership. It is another opportunity to view interesting oral arguments and to study and discuss appellate advocacy and developments. By joining the Ninth Circuit and other courts on the internet, I hope our Court will encourage greater accessibility, education and transparency of our justice system.

Thanks so very much to Chief Judge Davis for sending along this information for me to share with the readers of this blog. Here’s hoping that this will spur many more federal courts of appeals to join the Ninth Circuit in broadcasting live their oral arguments on YouTube.

“Appeals court turns down Manning appeal over contempt in WikiLeaks probe”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has an article headlined “Julian Assange Was Arrested. So Why Is Chelsea Manning Still In Jail? Manning has been in jail since early March for refusing to testify before a grand jury about Assange and WikiLeaks.”

Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18-525: At this link.

“Advocates that Drive the Justices’ Votes”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Saginaw parking ticket lawsuit could have ‘major effects across the country'”: In January 2019, Cole Waterman of MLive had an article that begins, “Can government operatives issue parking tickets based on chalking vehicle tires, or does such an act constitute a violation of one’s constitutional rights? That’s an issue before a federal appeals court after a lawsuit was filed over tire chalking in Saginaw.”

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this decision reinstating the lawsuit.

“Third Circuit Considers Sex-Segregated Swimming and the Fair Housing Act”: Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service had this report last month.

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision holding that the condominium defendant’s gender-segregated pool schedule discriminates against women in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

“Philadelphia can exclude foster agency that won’t work with same-sex couples: court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, Julia Terruso of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Catholic foster care agency loses federal appeal over LGBTQ policy.”

“Supreme Court to Decide Whether Bias Law Covers Gay and Transgender Workers”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Accuracy at core of Supreme Court case over census question”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in five new cases, two of which were consolidated for a single hour of oral argument. And the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

“A Supreme Court Case That Will Affect Every Aspect of National Life: Can the federal census form ask whether each member of a household is a U.S. citizen?” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.