“What the Law Professors Brought to the Trump Impeachment Hearings”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“He’s Back. After Resigning, Federal Judge Accused of Sexual Harassment Returns As A Practitioner.” Patricia Barnes has this post online at Forbes.

And at “Above the Law,” Kathryn Rubino has a post titled “Disgraced Former Judge Alex Kozinski’s Rehabilitation Tour Continues With Oral Argument; Of course this guy wants back into the club of elite legal minds.”

Former Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is credited with the decision to institute live-streaming of that court’s oral arguments on YouTube, and as a result you can view his oral argument online via this link during an oral argument session scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. eastern time, 9:30 a.m. pacific time tomorrow.

“Trump’s private business interests are back at appeals courts in emoluments cases”: Ann E. Marimow and Jonathan O’Connell of The Washington Post have this report.

“Barr Dives Into the Culture Wars, and Social Conservatives Rejoice; The attorney general embodies the combative culture and conservative ideology that animate the president and the Republican Party; Is he what the party looks like post-Trump?” Jeremy W. Peters and Katie Benner of The New York Times have this report.

“Democrats Rediscover the Constitution: The impeachment effort has Pelosi and even leftist law professors touting the Founding Fathers’ intent.” Seth Lipsky has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Congress and the Spending Power: The Supreme Court considers ObamaCare payments to insurers.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Emoluments: Trump’s profits from private businesses to get hard look from federal appeals courts.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Trump heads to court in fight over emoluments.”

“Muslim Prisoner Denied Prayer Service Access Has Case Reinstated”: Peter Hayes of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued Friday.

In earlier coverage, Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reported on the appellate oral argument in an article headlined “Muslim Inmate Challenges Prison TV Ban in Fourth Circuit.”

And Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported on the case in an article headlined “Prison inmate in ‘solitary’ takes his religious rights claim to federal appeals court.”

Majority on divided Second Circuit panel holds that a plaintiff’s acceptance of an offer of judgment to settle a Fair Labor Standards Act overtime claim does not require a district court’s review and approval for fairness before becoming effective: You can access Friday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link. Senior Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi issued a lengthy and emphatic dissent.

“Court: Landlords can be liable for racially harassed tenants.” Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Landlords can be held liable in limited circumstances under federal law when a tenant racially harasses another tenant, a federal appeals court said Friday.”

And Amanda Ottaway of Courhouse News Service reports that “Harassed Tenant Gets OK to Hold Landlord Liable.”

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

“Will Chief Justice Roberts miss any Court time during a Senate impeachment trial? Probably not, because according to Senate rules, proceedings will likely begin at 1:00 p.m.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Fairness for All, a good idea nearly everyone hates”: Andrew Koppelman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

And in related news coverage, Thomas Burr of The Salt Lake Tribune has an article headlined “Rep. Chris Stewart pitches LGBTQ rights bill with religious exemptions.”

“The Founding Fathers Were Obsessed With Impeachment; How we know what James Madison thought, and why it matters today”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Free Speech, Incorporated: A new, neoliberal interpretation of the First Amendment is undermining the regulatory state — and every labeling and advertising law is now in the crosshairs.” Law professor Amy Kapczynski has this article online at Boston Review.

“Impeaching Other Presidents: History lessons and a constitutional law clinic at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick with law professor Kate Shaw.

“New Hampshire to Supreme Court: Leave nudity laws to locals.” Holly Ramer of The Associated Press has this report.

My earlier coverage of New Hampshire’s Brief in Opposition recently filed in the U.S. Supreme Court can be accessed here.

“The focus now isn’t on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It’s on the judge, the attorneys, and the jurors.” In today’s edition of The Boston Globe, Milton J. Valencia has this front page article previewing this upcoming Thursday’s oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

According to the court’s website, the three-judge panel assigned to hear and decide this appeal will consist of Circuit Judges Juan R. Torruella, O. Rogeriee Thompson, and William J. Kayatta, Jr.

“Balancing LGBTQ Rights And Religious Liberty”: Tom Gjelten had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday.”

“Maine Democrats running for U.S. Senate united by motivations; Four candidates seeking the party’s nomination in 2020 express frustration with the four-term Republican incumbent”: Kevin Miller and Scott Thistle of The Portland Press Herald have this report.

“In new ad, Roy Moore claims he was a victim of a smear campaign like Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh”: Melissa Lemieux of Newsweek has this report.