“Could California Appeal Today’s California Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Candidate Tax Return Disclosure To SCOTUS? Maybe, Under Cases Arising Out of the 2000 Bush v. Gore Race.” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Governor vetoes bill outlawing abortions over Down syndrome”: Mark Scolforo of The Associated Press has this report from Harrisburg, Pa.

“The Supreme Court’s Textualism Test: Kagan tries to lure Gorsuch and Roberts off the Scalia method.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“1st Circuit: ‘Quasi-cross examination’ not required in private colleges’ sex assault probes.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s First Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Democratic Candidates Are Utterly Delusional About the Looming Judicial Crisis; Even their more moderate policy proposals will struggle to get the approval of a right-wing Supreme Court”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“California Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Candidate Tax Returns; State law would have required White House candidates to submit returns 3 months before primary”: Brent Kendall and Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Maura Dolan and John Myers of The Los Angeles Times report that “Trump may withhold tax returns and appear on ballot, California Supreme Court rules.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “California Supreme Court knocks down Trump tax requirement for primary run.”

Gabrielle Canon and Sam Metz of USA Today report that “California Supreme Court strikes down law seeking release of Trump’s tax returns.”

Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “California Supreme Court rules state can’t force Trump to release tax returns.”

Bryan Anderson of The Sacramento Bee reports that “California can’t force Donald Trump to release tax returns, state Supreme Court rules.”

Brian Melley of The Associated Press reports that “California court invalidates law requiring Trump tax returns.”

Stephanie Becker and Kate Sullivan of CNN report that “California Supreme Court says law requiring presidential candidates to turn over tax returns is invalid.”

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News reports that “California Supreme Court rejects law requiring Trump to release tax returns to get on ballot.”

Jeremy B. White of Politico reports that “California Supreme Court strikes down Trump tax returns law.”

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman of HuffPost reports that “California Supreme Court Strikes Down Tax Return Law Aimed At Trump; The justices ruled that a new law requiring presidential candidates to release tax filings in order to appear on the California primary ballot was ‘invalid.’”

John Kruzel and Naomi Jagoda of The Hill report that “California high court strikes down state law targeting Trump tax returns.”

Bridget Bowman of Roll Call reports that “California Supreme Court blocks effort to get Trump’s tax returns; Law would have required disclosure to get on 2020 primary ballot.”

And at the “At the Lectern” blog, David Ettinger has a post titled “Supreme Court mostly neutralizes law requiring presidential candidate tax return disclosure.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“ABA’s evaluation of judicial nominees tarnished by liberal bias; Trump’s nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court, Lawrence VanDyke, rated as ‘not qualified'”: Jenny Beth Martin has this essay online at The Washington Times.

“Lawrence VanDyke judicial nomination advances on party-line vote”: Gary Martin of The Las Vegas Review-Journal has this report.

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Senate Committee Advances 9th Circuit Pick With Bad Rating.”

“Justice Kennedy asked Trump to put Kavanaugh on Supreme Court list, book says”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“FedSoc is a They, not an It”: William Baude has this post at the new “Summary, Judgment” blog.

And also at that blog, Adam Chilton has a post in response titled “The Market for FedSoc.”

“Judge halts scheduled federal executions, says Barr’s lethal injection protocol appears at odds with the law”: Meagan Flynn and Mark Berman of The Washington Post have this report.

And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Judge halts all scheduled federal executions; The Trump administration has been seeking to utilize the death penalty on a federal level.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

“The Left Shouldn’t Freak Out About Trump’s Judges (Yet); The federal appeals courts are not irretrievably lost for liberals”: Martin J. Siegel has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Can the Supreme Court Save Itself? Two cases threaten to reinforce its image as a political captive of the Trump administration.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

Programming note: Greetings from Harrisburg, Pa., where I will be attending this morning’s session of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to see the oral argument of an appeal on which I have worked.

As a result, additional posts will appear here this afternoon. In the interim, more frequent appellate-related retweets are likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.