“Voters reject Democrats’ court-packing, say Trump should fill any 2020 vacancy”: Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times have this report.

“Supreme Court tosses Michigan gerrymandering ruling in GOP win”: Keith Laing and Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News have this report.

Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press has an article headlined “US Supreme Court overturns ruling in Michigan gerrymandering case: What it means.”

Lauren Gibbons of MLive reports that “U.S. Supreme Court overturns Michigan gerrymandering ruling.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court tosses challenge to Republican-drawn Michigan electoral maps.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Tosses Michigan Gerrymandering Ruling in GOP Win.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court wipes out ruling on Michigan partisan gerrymander; The court had already declared in June that such challenges involve an essentially political issue, beyond the authority of federal courts to resolve.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court throws out challenge to Michigan electoral map.”

And Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court erases Michigan gerrymandering ruling; Justices decided in June that federal courts can’t rein in politicians who draw political maps to entrench a partisan advantage.”

“The Supreme Court is Poised to Blow A Giant Hole in Gun Control. Here’s How the Liberal Justices Can Intervene.” Aaron Tang has this post at the “Harvard Law Review Blog.”

“Manhattan DA, Trump lawyers strike deal that could fast-track Trump taxes fight to SCOTUS”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“John Roberts Won’t Let Mitch McConnell Derail a Trump Impeachment Trial”: Law professor Bruce Ackerman has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Will the Supreme Court See Through Trump’s War on California? Trump suddenly seems to care a lot about pollution.” Law professor Leah Litman has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Lessons on Leading With Grace: Chief Judge Procter Hug held the 9th Circuit together through a remarkable demonstration of earnest leadership.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate in memory of the judge for whom she clerked.

And this obituary of Procter R. Hug, Jr. was published in The Reno Gazette-Journal.

“Fun with Reverse Ejusdem Generis”: Law professor Jay Wexler has posted this article online at SSRN.

“State Supreme Court to hear arguments over Wisconsin’s lame-duck laws”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“As Court Case Imperils Affordable Care Act, Some States Prepare Contingency Plans; Lawmakers explore ways to preserve coverage, benefits if the health law is struck down”: Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Is Oral Argument Talking Time All It’s Cut Out to Be?” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Severability Doctrine in the Fifth Circuit; At least two judges favor Justice Thomas’s approach to severability”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“National poll: Majority of Americans lacks confidence in President Trump when it comes to making Supreme Court picks.” Craig Gilbert and Richard Wolf of USA Today have this report, along with an article headlined “Who’s the best known justice on the Supreme Court? Brett Kavanaugh tops Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

The Marquette University Law School today issued a news release titled “New nationwide Marquette Law School Poll finds confidence in U.S. Supreme Court overall, though more pronounced among conservatives.” You can access the poll’s detailed results via this link.

“All Courts Should Abolish the Need for Amici to Seek Leave of the Parties; And pro hac vice fees should be waived for counsel representing amici pro bono”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

And in Lipschultz v. Charter Advanced Servs. (MN), LLC, No. 18-1386, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrence, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined, in the denial of certiorari.

“Rick Perry and the German Policeman”: You can access today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring Leah Litman, Jaime Santos, and Kate Shaw, via this link.

“Airbnb property manager accused of violating law asks Pa. Supreme Court to weigh in on gig economy”: Caitlin McCabe of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“I Had a Late-Term Abortion. I Am Not a Monster. I am a grieving mother who protected her child from a life of pain and suffering.” Lyndsay Werking-Yip has this essay in the Sunday Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Sotomayor shares message of hard work, acceptance with Meriden students”: Steven Scarpa of The Record-Journal of Meriden, Connecticut has this report.

“Blind Michigan Supreme Court judge finishes Detroit Free Press/TCF Bank Marathon”: JC Reindl of The Detroit Free Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Justices Enjoy A Lot Of Privately Funded Travel. Now Lawmakers Want To Know Who’s Paying.” Kevin Daley of the Daily Caller has this report.

“The court that could decide the future of Trump’s presidency”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Immigration Cases, Judicial Vacancies Tax New Mexico Courts; ‘It’s crushing’; judges, some from as far away as New York and New Hampshire have been called in to help”: Alicia A. Caldwell and Dan Frosch of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“Revenge porn isn’t protected free speech, Illinois Supreme Court rules”: Charles Keeshan of The Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Illinois has this report.

And Sarah Mansur and Jordyn Reiland of The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin have an article headlined “State high court: ‘Revenge porn’ law is constitutional.”

You can access yesterday’s 5-to-2 ruling of the Supreme Court of Illinois at this link.

“Maui mayor defies Council, pursues Supreme Court appeal”: Timothy Hurley of The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has this report.

And Wendy Osher of Maui Now has an article headlined “Mayor: Maui Will Not Withdraw Supreme Court Appeal in Lahaina Injection Well Case.”

“The people know what laws mean. The Supreme Court shouldn’t try to rewrite them.” Columnist Hugh Hewitt has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court to Consider Challenge to Quick Deportations of Some Seeking Asylum; Case stems from petition from Sri Lankan man who argued he hadn’t been given a meaningful opportunity to make his plea for asylum”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court will rule on expedited removal of those denied asylum requests.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Trump administration’s effort to speed removal of migrants seeking asylum headed to Supreme Court.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court to hear Trump challenge on expedited deportations rulings.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court takes up case over quick deportations.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Trump appeal over rapid deportation dispute.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Administration Gets High Court Review on Quick Deportation.”

Ariane de Vogue and Priscilla Alvarez of CNN report that “Supreme Court to consider rights of asylum seekers to challenge expedited removal orders.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to hear case over quick deportations.”

And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “Sri Lankan Fighting Deportation Will Get High Court Audience.”

“Supreme Court will decide constitutionality of consumer watchdog bureau”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court will hear challenge to autonomy of consumer agency spearheaded by Elizabeth Warren.”

Yuka Hayashi and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Consider Structure of Consumer Finance Watchdog; Critics say Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership is unconstitutional because of accountability issues.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging independence of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide whether Obama-era Wall Street cop is legal; CFPB was Elizabeth Warren’s pet project.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court takes up challenge to consumer protection agency.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Curbing CFPB’s Independence.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court will hear constitutional challenge to structure of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Danielle Wallace of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court to decide if Obama-era Wall Street watchdog agency is constitutional.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court will hear challenge to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Katy O’Donnell of Politico reports that “Supreme Court to review Trump-backed challenge to consumer bureau.”

Sylvan Lane and Harper Neidig of The Hill report that “Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to consumer agency.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Justices reopen major dispute on presidential power.”

And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can fire the CFPB director; The implications are enormous; A war over the limits of Trump’s power is about to get real.”

“Over My Dead Body”: The October 11, 2019 broadcast of the ABC News program “20/20” focused on the trial of two suspects accused in the murder of Dan Markel. You can now freely access the video of the entire broadcast via this link.

“Progressives Need a Vision for a Supreme Court They Can Fight For; Democrats might be late to the party, but they can make the Court a winning issue”: Katie O’Connor has this essay online at Rewire.News.

“Adnan Syed case: Frosh urges Supreme Court to deny appeal.” Tim Prudente of The Baltimore Sun has this report on the brief in opposition that the State of Maryland filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court Doesn’t Understand Transgender People; Its ignorance could lead to a legal catastrophe”: Alexander Chen has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Facebook asks for SCOTUS review of TCPA scope and constitutionality”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Louisiana Abortion Framework Headed Back to District Court”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a per curiam decision denying a writ of mandamus that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

“Federal Appeals Court Tweaks, But Upholds, City Law Limiting Anti-Abortion Protest”: Chris Potter and Lucy Perkins of Pittsburgh’s NPR News Station 90.5 WESA have this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

And at his “CA3blog,” Matthew Stiegler has a post titled “Third Circuit rules that Pittsburgh’s abortion-clinic buffer zone doesn’t apply to ‘sidewalk counseling.’“