“The Supreme Court Will Soon Consider Whether the Census Will Include a Citizenship Question”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Guantánamo’s Darkest Secret: The U.S. military prison’s leadership considered Mohamedou Salahi to be its highest-value detainee; But his guard suspected otherwise.” Ben Taub has this article in the April 22, 2019 issue of The New Yorker.

“Troy political fallout has its day in nation’s highest court; Arguments in 2009 ballot fraud case go before U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday”: Kenneth C. Crowe II of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Pittsburgh rapper’s free-speech case”: Torsten Ove of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this report.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court declines to take up First Amendment case brought by rap artist.”

On yesterday’s Order List, the U.S. Supreme Court did not grant review in any new cases, but the Court did call for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

“The changing narrative on the death penalty”: Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Pete Buttigieg’s Court Packing Alternative Is Wonky and Nonpartisan. It’s Also Unconstitutional.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Something Is Rotten In States’ Execution Protocols And Capital Litigation at SCOTUS”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Court ruling adds to delay in alleged USS Cole bomber case”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And at the “Just Security” blog, Steve Vladeck has a post titled “Al-Nashiri III: A No Good, Very Bad Day for U.S. Military Commissions.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

In today’s mail: I received a copy of law professor Andrew Coan‘s new book, “Rationing the Constitution: How Judicial Capacity Shapes Supreme Court Decision-Making.” The book’s official on-sale date is April 29, 2019.

“Tensions on the Supreme Court are spilling into view”: Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

Programming note: My visit to Atlanta to attend my 30th law school reunion will conclude Monday evening after I visit a law school class tomorrow and then speak with the participants in Emory Law’s Supreme Court clinic.

Because I won’t be returning home until late Monday night, additional posts will appear here on Tuesday morning. As always while I’m traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets are likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

“His Supreme Court case legalized gay marriage — Now, Jim Obergefell is leaving DC; Nearly four years after the landmark Supreme Court decision, LGBT activist Jim Obergefell is leaving Washington for a new act”: Mike Valerio of Washington, DC’s CBS affiliate WUSA9 has this report.

“‘Law must protect human freedom’: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy receives award from Duke Law.” Stefanie Pousoulides of The Duke Chronicle has this report.

“University of Chicago professor spoke on whether the Supreme Court was the law of the land”: Megan Mittelhammer of The Red & Black, the student newspaper of the University of Georgia, has this report.

“Chuck Grassley: Supreme Court unlikely to overturn Obamacare, so no need to create replacement.” Tony Leys of The Des Moines Register has this report.

“If Assange Encouraged Leaks, So What? The arrest of the WikiLeaks founder amplifies an important free-speech conversation.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“After 55 years in prison, Baton Rouge man key to Supreme Court ruling again denied freedom”: Grace Toohey of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has this report.

And Samantha Michaels of Mother Jones reports that “A 72-Year-Old Juvenile Lifer Won a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling, But Louisiana Won’t Let Him Out of Prison.”

“Supreme Court to Hear a Case That Could Put Countless Immigrants at Risk of State Arrest”: Samuel Garcia has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“State Supreme Court to hear arguments over financial liability in Parkland shooting”: Jim Saunders of the News Service of Florida has this report.

“The Supreme Court Botches Another Death Penalty Decision: If a state has capital punishment, then the court must ensure that it proceeds fairly and deliberately.” Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Washington VIPs celebrate new book about retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor”: Helena Andrews-Dyer of The Washington Post has this report.

“Death Penalty Dust-Ups at the High Court: The gowns are on but the gloves are off when it comes to capital punishment.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

“This week at Supreme Court: Can clothing firm sell with a trademark resembling the F-word?” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And Paulina Dedaj of Fox News reports that “California man challenges federal law refusing ‘immoral’ trademark for clothing brand.”

“Same-sex birth certificate case stalls at 7th Circuit, putting families in limbo”: Marilyn Odendahl of The Indiana Lawyer recently had this report.

The appeal, which was argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on May 22, 2017, remains undecided. You can access the oral argument audio via this link.

“How Tough-on-Crime Prosecutors Contribute to Mass Incarceration”: On the cover of the Sunday Book Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, David Lat has this review of Emily Bazelon’s new book, “Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration.”

“Death and the Shadow Docket: The Supreme Court’s efforts to shift procedures in death penalty litigation.” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” a blog that now features a new design.

Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt may be dead, but votes he cast in cases that remained undecided when he died live on: Friday marked the second day in a row in which the unfriendly skies resulted in a Ninth Circuit decision. (My earlier coverage of Thursday’s ruling can be accessed here.)

In the ruling that issued on Friday, Reinhardt’s vote did not actually count, because he had been replaced on the three-judge panel by another judge. But that did not prevent one member of the three-judge panel, Senior Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman visiting from the Sixth Circuit, from writing toward the start of his 20-page separate opinion:

Prior to his death in March 2018, Judge Stephen Reinhardt was a member of this panel and prepared a draft opinion holding that the “knowingly” mens rea requirement contained in 18 U.S.C. §2244(b) should be applied to each element of the offense, including that the sexual contact be without the other person’s permission. Unabashedly, much of this concurrence can be attributed to the portions of Judge Reinhardt’s draft opinion with which I fully agree.

Although Gilman’s opinion can be read as giving credit where credit is due, the effect of this passage is to note that the position Judge Gilman advocates would have attained a majority had Reinhardt not unexpectedly passed away when he did.

The disagreement between the current majority and Gilman on this issue is itself very interesting, but I just wanted to flag this noteworthy aspect of Gilman’s separate opinion.

11-judge Ninth Circuit en banc panel issues unpublished, non-precedential decision with many judges writing separately reversing entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants based on qualified immunity: It’s not every day that a case is important enough to receive en banc review and yet the en banc court’s ruling issues in the form of an unpublished, non-precedential ruling. But it happened on April 3, 2019 in the Ninth Circuit. Thanks to a reader for sending along the link to this ruling.

Majority on divided Seventh Circuit panel rejects Second Amendment challenge to Illinois’ concealed carry restrictions, which preclude citizens of 45 other states from receiving a concealed carry license: Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder, Jr. wrote the opinion of the court, in which Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton joined. Senior Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion issued a dissenting opinion.

“Court paves way for FEC to reveal anonymous $1.7 million super PAC donor; The case involves a donation to a super PAC in 2012 that was routed through a LLC and a conservative advocacy group”: Maggie Severns of Politico has this report.

And Kate Ackley of Roll Call reports that “This mysterious 2012 super PAC donor may finally be revealed; The case dates to a $1.71 million donation to a super PAC supporting Missouri candidate Todd Akin.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“The Supreme Court of Canada [yesterday] published its first Year in Review, an annual document describing the Court’s activities in the preceding year.” So states a news release that Canada’s highest court has issued. You can access the 21-page Year in Review report at this link.

“He wants to trademark a brand name that sounds like the F-word. The Supreme Court is listening.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Fashion brand ‘FUCT’ seeks trademark help from Supreme Court.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report headlined “F-words and T-shirts: U.S. Supreme Court weighs foul language trademarks.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Clothing Line’s Vulgar Name Tests Supreme Court on Trademark Rights.”

“‘You can hear the Klan’s lawyers’: Federal judge likens Trump’s attacks on judiciary to KKK.” Reis Thebault of The Washington Post has this report.

Alex Swoyer and Bailey Vogt of The Washington Times report that “Federal judge compares Trump to KKK, says president engaged in ‘great assault on our judiciary’; ‘They are words of an attacker, seeking to distort and twist that search toward falsehood.’”

In today’s edition of The Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi, Jimmie E. Gates has a front page article headlined “Mississippi Judge Carlton Reeves likens Trump attack on judiciary to KKK, Citizens Council.” Earlier, Gates had a related article headlined “He’s ruled on some of Mississippi’s biggest cases. Now, Judge Carlton Reeves is a Thomas Jefferson law honoree.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Federal judge rebukes Trump attacks on courts, compares to segregationist era.”

John Bowden of The Hill reports that “Federal judge tears into Trump’s criticism of judiciary.”

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman of HuffPost reports that “Federal Judge Compares Trump’s Attacks On Courts To KKK And Segregationists; ‘When politicians attack courts as “dangerous,” “political” . . . you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South,’ said U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Federal Judge Compared Trump’s Criticism Of The Courts To The KKK And Segregationists; ‘We are now eyewitnesses to the third great assault on our judiciary,’ Judge Carlton Reeves said in a speech on Thursday.”

Eric Williamson of the University of Virginia School of Law reports that “Jefferson Medalist Calls for Defense of Judiciary; U.S. Judge Carlton W. Reeves ’89 Says Justice Under Attack.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Federal Judge: Donald Trump Is Leading an ‘Assault on Our Judiciary.’” Slate has posted online at this link the prepared text of the judge’s speech.

And the University of Virginia School of Law has posted on YouTube at this link the video of the speech that U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (S.D. Miss.) delivered on Thursday.

Programming note: Midday on Friday, I will be traveling to Atlanta, where this weekend my law school class will be celebrating its 30th reunion. I figured after 29 years of not attending these things, perhaps I’d give it a try this year. I will remain in Atlanta until Monday evening, because on Monday I’ll be speaking with a law school class and visiting the participants in Emory Law’s Supreme Court clinic.

As a result, new posts will not appear here until Friday afternoon. As always while I’m traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets are likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

“US solicitor general weighs in on cross-border shooting case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.