“A Rose by Any Other Name — or — It’s not Wrong it’s just Different”: At his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has a post that begins, “The bench was an active inquisitor in the Thryv v. Click-to-Call oral arguments held Dec. 9, 2020 before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Federal court says animal rights protesters OK to use bullhorns outside Six Flags”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“FDA can regulate e-cigarettes just like conventional cigarettes, appeals court says”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Bill Cosby’s Criminal Case Primed for Pennsylvania Supreme Court”: Ashley Cullins has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“The Supreme Court majority should resist the temptation to expand the Second Amendment”: Greg Weiner has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Perverse Servility of Bill Barr: How does Trump’s attorney general keep a straight face?” Columnist Frank Bruni has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Senate confirms openly gay Trump nominee to 9th Circuit”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a news release titled “Senate Confirms Patrick J. Bumatay to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Patrick J. Bumatay to serve on the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 53-to-40.

“Supreme Court May Back Insurers in $12 Billion Obamacare Case; The justices weighed whether the federal government may walk away from a commitment to shield insurance companies from losses”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court considers claims under Obamacare that government owes billions to insurers.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Questions Government Bid to Avoid Paying Insurers Under Affordable Care Act; Most justices sound skeptical of arguments government doesn’t have to pay roughly $12 billion.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Insurers plead with Supreme Court for $12 billion in government reimbursements for Obamacare.”

Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court offers sympathetic ear to insurers over $12B in ObamaCare claims.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Justices grapple with multibillion-dollar ObamaCare case.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Another Case Involving The Affordable Care Act.”

And in commentary, online at NBC News, law professor Leah Litman has an essay titled “Supreme Court faces Republican pressure to be activist and scrap Obamacare. How ironic. It’s not the high court’s job to give the GOP the laws they couldn’t pass in the legislature.”

“The Fourth Circuit Emoluments Case Proceeds En Banc: A Non-Partisan Guide for Lawyers.” Derek Stikeleather has this post at the “Maryland Appellate Blog.”

“Impeachment and the Spending Power Revisited: In assessing impeachment, we should keep in mind Trump’s usurpation of Congress’ power over federal spending; This is a serious violation of the Constitution, and focusing on it overcomes some standard objections to impeachment.” Ilya Somin has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“These Two Articles of Impeachment Are More Than Good Enough”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Bill Cosby loses bid to overturn his sexual assault conviction”: Jeremy Roebuck and Laura McCrystal of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.

Graham Bowley of The New York Times reports that “Bill Cosby Loses Appeal of Sexual Assault Conviction; A Pennsylvania appellate court unanimously rejected the entertainer’s argument that he had been denied a fair trial, saying that evidence in the case had established a ‘unique sexual assault playbook.’”

And Maryclaire Dale of The Associated Press reports that “Bill Cosby loses appeal of sexual assault conviction.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“What the Democrats Left Out: Instead of settling on charges that relate to statutory crimes, with clear, concrete criteria, the Democrats have instead released two articles of impeachment in which the misconduct exists largely in the eye of the beholder.” Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “The Legal Strategy Behind Keeping Impeachment Simple; Why Democrats are focusing only on two compact articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.”

“Chief justice to hustle daily between two buildings for double duty during impeachment trial”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“Obamacare had an unusually good day at the Supreme Court; As many as six justices appeared bothered by a Republican effort to undercut the Affordable Care Act”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Obamacare insurers may win a $12-billion claim in Supreme Court”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem to favor insurers’ Obamacare claims for $12B.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court justices lean toward insurers on $12 billion Obamacare claims.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, No. 18-1023.

That’s rich! — As an advocate arguing his first post-resignation Ninth Circuit appeal, Alex Kozinski began his oral argument by inviting the judges to consider an unpublished concurring opinion for its persuasive value: Way back preceding the approval in 2006 of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which allows advocates to cite to unpublished and non-precedential opinions even in the Ninth Circuit for their persuasive value, then-Judge Kozinski was among the most forceful voices against the adoption of that proposed rule change. Perhaps, at least in this respect, he has seen the error of his ways.

“Thin and Thick Conceptions of the Nineteenth Amendment Right to Vote and Congress’s Power to Enforce It”: Law professors Richard L. Hasen and Leah Litman have posted this article online at SSRN.

“Senator Chuck Grassley and Judicial Confirmations”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this article at the Iowa Law Review Online.

Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“The Age of the ‘Dead Parrot’ Supreme Court Case: Conservative activists keep asking the Court to hear cases that are already irrelevant — and, worryingly, the Court keeps saying yes.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Berkeley’s cell-phone health warning survives Supreme Court challenge”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Berkeley cell phone law.”

“A Maine insurer is arguing for billions in ACA money at the US Supreme Court today”: Caitlin Andrews and Michael Shepherd of The Bangor Daily News have this report.

“Impeachment for Corrupt Schemes: A Response to Josh Blackman; I couldn’t disagree more with my friend Josh Blackman; Here’s why.” Orin S. Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”