“Federal court strikes down Maryland law requiring newspapers disclose political-ad buyers”: Christopher Vondracek of The Washington Times has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court Won’t Allow Federal Executions to Resume; The Trump administration had asked the justices to overturn a trial judge’s ruling that blocked the first four federal executions scheduled in nearly two decades”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Mark Berman and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court won’t let Justice Dept. immediately resume federal executions after hiatus.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Derails Plans to Resume Federal Executions; Daniel Lewis Lee was set to be the first federal death-row inmate to be executed in 16 years on Monday.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court temporarily blocks resumption of federal executions.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court keeps federal executions on hold.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to resume federal executions.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Top Court Rejects Trump, Won’t Let Federal Executions Resume.”

Ariane de Vogue and David Shortell of CNN report that “Supreme Court blocks Justice Department from restarting federal executions next week.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “SCOTUS snubs Trump administration’s execution plans.”

And Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court denies Trump request to immediately resume federal executions.”

You can access this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the separate opinion of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in which Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined, at this link.

“Supreme Court to Decide if a State Can Consider Political Affiliation in Appointing Judges; Delaware tries to achieve partisan balance on its courts; A federal appeals said that violates the First Amendment”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court will study whether states may require partisan balance for courts.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Delaware Judicial Partisan-Balance Rule Gets High Court Look.”

And earlier, Henry Gass of The Christian Science Monitor had an article headlined “What’s the best way to ensure impartial judges? Delaware prompts a rethink. Amid widespread polarization, the need to make the courts appear nonpartisan is greater than ever; But how do you select judges without making them seem beholden to political interests?“

“Trump hates the courts, but they could help him fight impeachment”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“The Supreme Court Case That Made Michael Bloomberg’s Campaign Possible — And Doomed Kamala Harris”: Jon Schwarz has this article online at The Intercept.

“A Phone-Sex Memoir Tests the Limits of Free Speech Rights; An appellate court sidesteps the key First Amendment issue in a case about a National Guard employee who lost her job for writing an explicit book”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Seventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

The lamentations of Judge Bybee: Last night, as I noted in this earlier post from shortly thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that Rachel Frazin and John Kruzel of The Hill report today on in an article headlined “Appeals court hands Trump partial win over ‘public charge’ rule for immigrants.”

As my earlier post noted, Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee wrote not only the majority opinion but also a separate opinion “concurring, perplexed and perturbed.”

Not only did Judge Bybee’s separate opinion have an interesting title, but it also had interesting content, such as:

Oh, I am not so naive as to think that a simple declaration of judicial neutrality will quell inquiry into judges’ backgrounds, prior writings, and opinions. The battles over judicial nominations provide ample proof that our generation of lawyers bear a diverse set of assumptions about the nature of law, proper modes of constitutional interpretation, and the role of the judiciary. These are fair debates and they are likely to continue for some time. We can only hope that over time our differences can be resolved by reason and persuasion rather than by politics by other means. But I don’t know of any judge — at least not this judge — who can say that every opinion and judgment she issued was in accord with her preferred policy outcomes. “[I]n our private opinions, [we] need not concur in Congress’ policies to hold its enactments constitutional. Judicially we must tolerate what personally we may regard as a legislative mistake.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 590 (1952).

* * * *

By constitutional design, the branch that is qualified to establish immigration policy and check any excesses in the implementation of that policy is Congress. See U.S. CONST. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4. And, so far as we can tell from our modest perch in the Ninth Circuit, Congress is no place to be found in these debates. We have seen case after case come through our courts, serious and earnest efforts, even as they are controversial, to address the nation’s immigration challenges. Yet we have seen little engagement and no actual legislation from Congress. It matters not to me as a judge whether Congress embraces or disapproves of the administration’s actions, but it is time for a feckless Congress to come to the table and grapple with these issues. Don’t leave the table and expect us to clean up.

You can access Judge Bybee’s entire separate opinion at this link.

“The Supreme Court considers a $12 billion plan to sabotage Obamacare; The Court will decide if the Trump administration must keep one of Obamacare’s promises”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“The Women Who Still Speak Up: One used to speak truth to power; Now, one speaks truth to nonsense.” Dahlia Lithwick has this essay online at Slate.

“U.S. Supreme Court takes up fight over Delaware judicial appointments”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Defining a Theory of ‘Bribery’ for Impeachment”: Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman have this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“When Shelters Are Full, Sleeping Outside Can Be the Only Option; The Supreme Court may review an Idaho lawsuit that’s forced cities to change the way they treat the homeless”: Esmé E Deprez and Noah Buhayar will have this article in the December 9, 2019 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek.

“Originalism, the Fourth Amendment, and New Technology”: Mike Rappaport has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“House Judiciary Committee Meets the Law Professoriate”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his “Dorf on Law” blog.

“Checks and Balances Needs More Balance”: John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.