“Is Trump Immune From Investigation? The Supreme Court May Soon Decide. The conservative movement has used Trump’s scandals to advance a radical theory of power.” Paul Blumenthal of HuffPost has this report.

“Supreme Court Confirms There Is No Fifth Vote to Protect Abortion Rights”: Jessica Mason Pieklo of Rewire.News has this news analysis.

“Judge urges Legislature to bar police from using ‘deceptive schemes’ to skirt Miranda rights”: Maura Dolan has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

And at the “At the Lectern” blog, David Ettinger has a post titled “A Justice Liu dissenting statement on denial of review in a Miranda case explains earlier dissents.”

You can access the dissenting statement at this link.

“William Barr Is Attacking His Own Department; The attorney general is undercutting the public’s trust in his own employees”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Snap, U.S. Chamber want 9th Circuit to review unusual class certification ruling”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Appeals court questions whether Boston Marathon bombing jury was biased”: Milton J. Valencia of The Boston Globe has this report.

And Philip Marcelo of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Did marathon bomber get fair trial? Court weighs arguments.”

Earlier, in today’s edition of The Boston Herald, Rick Sobey has articles headlined “Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces ‘punishment beyond the death penalty’ at Supermax: Ex-warden; Tsarnaev’s legal team argues appeal Thursday” and “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s company in Supermax: The federal Supermax prison in Colorado is home to the ‘Unabomber’ and ‘El Chapo.’”

And Andrew Martinez of The Boston Herald previewed today’s oral argument in an article headlined “Tsarnaev lawyers want Appeals Court to grant new trial, overturn death penalty.”

You can access at this link the audio of today’s one hour and 55 minute oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“Conservative Justices Aren’t About to Abolish the Government; Reviving the ‘nondelegation doctrine’ isn’t going to happen”: Ramesh Ponnuru has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Appeals court sharply divided over emoluments lawsuit against Trump”: Harper Neidig of The Hill has this report.

And Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “In emoluments case, federal appeals court appears divided over Trump Hotel; ‘This case is a lemon,’ one of the judges declared.”

C-SPAN has posted the audio at this link of the two related cases that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reheard en banc today.

“William Barr is unfit to be attorney general”: Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Trump tightens grips on judges as McConnell wins 50th Circuit pick; And Republicans are working to confirm even more judges before the Senate recesses next week”: Burgess Everett of Politico has this report.

“Trump poised for Supreme Court battle over financial records”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“CFPB challenger to SCOTUS: Let Congress fix bureau’s constitutional flaw.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Supreme Court Weighs Role of Jury in Death Penalty Case; An Arizona death row inmate was granted a new sentencing to consider evidence of childhood abuse; The justices examined whether that required a hearing in a trial court”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court divided on Arizona murderer’s effort to reverse death sentence.”

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Arizona Killer’s Death Sentence Fought at Supreme Court.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109.

“U.S. Supreme Court hears international child custody spat from Cleveland area”: Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Monasky v. Taglieri, No. 18-935.

“The Supreme Court gives free speech to fake doctors, but not real ones”: Law professor Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr. has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Lawrence VanDyke confirmed to appellate court bench”: Gary Martin of The Las Vegas Review-Journal has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Senate confirms conservative, described by the bar as unfit, to SF appeals court.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Senate confirms Trump’s 50th federal appeals court judge.”

Matthew Daly of The Associated Press reports that “Senate OKs appeals court judges over home-state opposition.”

Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “Trump secures 50th appellate court appointment, with another Ninth Circuit judge confirmed.”

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “10th Trump Nominee Confirmed to Seat on Ninth Circuit.”

The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a news release titled “Senate Confirms Lawrence VanDyke to Seat on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Senate Confirms Trump Judicial Nominee Who Cried When Confronted With Anti-Gay Record; Lawrence VanDyke is just the latest Trump nominee whom Republicans confirmed despite a ‘Not Qualified’ rating.”

And at his “The Vetting Room” blog, Harsh Voruganti has a post titled “Lawrence VanDyke — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”

This afternoon, the U.S. Senate confirmed Lawrence VanDyke to serve on the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 51-to-44.

“Lawyers fear Tories are planning ‘revenge’ against Supreme Court; Legal experts raise concern that constitutional review could be used to punish judges for overturning prorogation”: Jane Croft and James Blitz of Financial Times (UK) have an article (subscription may be required to access) that begins, “Plans by UK prime minister Boris Johnson to conduct a sweeping review of the constitutional relationship between the UK government and the courts have raised fears that he may be seeking to punish the Supreme Court for overturning his prorogation of parliament.”

“Due Process and National Injunctions”: James E. Pfander has this post at “Jotwell” about law professor Mila Sohoni‘s forthcoming Harvard Law Review article, titled “The Lost History of the ‘Universal’ Injunction.”

“Brett Kavanaugh’s Path To Becoming Supreme Court Justice”: Yesterday’s new installment of the podcast “Diane Rehm: On My Mind” featured an interview with Ruth Marcus, author of the new book “Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover.”

“Here Come the Generals”: You can access online today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast featuring law professors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw and Jaime Santos.

“Arizona death penalty case to be heard by Supreme Court”: Lauren Castle of The Arizona Republic has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear international child custody dispute from Cleveland area”: Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

“His Appeal in Louisiana Was a Sham Proceeding. But the High Court Won’t Review the Case. Louisiana automatically rejected appeals from prisoners who represented themselves. One prisoner hoped the Supreme Court would consider his conviction in the light of that scandal.” Andrew Cohen has this report online at The Marshall Project.

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“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.