“Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s defenders actually show why misconduct reporting must change”: David E. Hackett has this letter to the editor online at The Los Angeles Times.

“The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment: Even with the help of powerful 21st-century linguistic databases, the phrase ‘keep and bear arms’ remains debatable.” James C. Phillips and law professor Josh Blackman have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Appeals court rejects unfair competition suit against Trump’s D.C. hotel; A D.C. wine bar had argued it was losing business due to efforts to curry favor with president”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “DC wine bar loses appeal in lawsuit against Trump hotel.”

And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “DC Circuit Sinks Suit by Wine Bar Competing With Trump.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify; An appeals court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Former White House counsel Don McGahn does not have to testify to House, appeals court finds.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Won’t Force Ex-Trump Counsel to Comply With House Subpoena; Judges can’t resolve subpoena dispute between White House, Congress, according to divided decision.”

Bart Jansen and Kristine Phillips of USA Today report that “Former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn doesn’t have to testify after court dismisses lawsuit.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Trump triumphs, successfully appeals to block McGahn testimony.”

Jan Wolfe and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Trump wins bid to block McGahn testimony sought by House Democrats.”

Andrew M Harris and Erik Larson of Bloomberg News report that “Trump Wins Court Ruling on Resisting Congressional Testimony.”

Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Trump wins appeal to block McGahn testimony; The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to talk to former White House counsel Don McGahn, a key witness in the Russia probe.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “House suit seeking McGahn testimony tossed by appeals court; The opinion said Congress has other powers to compel McGahn’s testimony, and shouldn’t have to drag the courts into it.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court rules House can’t sue to enforce McGahn subpoena.”

And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “DC Circuit Throws Out McGahn Subpoena Case.”

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

“Roberts Faces Moment of Truth on Abortion Issue at Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“U.S. Court of Appeals rules against Omaha college basketball referee who says he was harassed”: Nancy Gaarder of The Omaha World-Herald has a report that begins, “John Higgins, an Omaha-based college basketball referee, has been rebuffed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in his effort to seek redress from Kentucky sports personalities for harassment he received after the Wildcats’ 2017 loss in the NCAA tournament.”

And Brian Flood of Bloomberg Law reports that “NCAA Ref Can’t Sue Radio Station Over March Madness Harassment.”

Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued today’s ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can fire the head of the CFPB. The implications are enormous. Trump wants to be able to fire the CFPB director. He could get a whole lot more.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Roberts rules — The Supreme Court’s chief justice is poised to decide a clutch of controversies: Presidential authority, abortion and Donald Trump’s tax returns are all coming before the court.” Steven Mazie has this article in the February 29, 2020 issue of The Economist.

“How Will Trump’s Supreme Court Remake America? On abortion, gun rights and more, the future could be determined by how fully the court’s new conservative majority embraces a rigid understanding of the Constitution.” Emily Bazelon has this article online at The New York Times Magazine.

“The Supreme Court Nears the Moment of Truth on Religion: The majority’s view of the Constitution’s free-exercise clause poses a threat to civil society.” Columnist Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

The column currently refers to Sixth Circuit Judge “Bruce Donald,” instead of the judge who actually participated in the decision in question, whose name is Bernice B. Donald. (For what it’s worth, Judge Donald’s middle name is not Bruce either, but Bouie.) (For those willing to indulge me in multiple parentheticals, when I spoke at the Sixth Circuit’s Judicial Conference in Louisville a while back, I attended the same optional outing as Judge Donald, during which she had me show her how to access this blog on her cell phone. Who knows, perhaps that’s how she will first read this post.)

Update: Fewer than 10 minutes after I published this post, The Times corrected the error noted above and appended a correction notice at the end of the column.

“President Trump’s immigration crackdown inundates Supreme Court”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Lots of grousing, few solutions at Senate hearing on nationwide injunctions”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

You access the video of Tuesday’s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Rule by District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions” via this link.

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to Speak at UW College of Law’s Centennial Celebration”: The University of Wyoming issued this news release Wednesday.

“The Supreme Court case that could end Roe v. Wade, explained; There are three ways the Court could decide June Medical Services v. Russo. Not one is good news for abortion rights”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Speaking statistically, this GOP donor wants to convince you that money buys justice in Texas; After losing a case at the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, millionaire Salem Abraham set out to mathematically test the idea that campaign contributions influence the elected justices; Now he wants to change the system”: Emma Platoff of The Texas Tribune has this report.

And Ross Ramsey of The Texas Tribune has a news analysis headlined “The Texas Supreme Court and the ruling class: A well-heeled loser of a lawsuit that went to the Texas Supreme Court did a detailed analysis and concluded that the big law firms that politically support the judges get the best results; Maybe money is the reason, maybe it’s not.”

“Trump’s 2020 message behind his attacks on liberal Supreme Court justices”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s ‘Janus’ decision merits an encore”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Feds Face Fierce 7th Circ. Panel Over Public Charge Rule”: Law360 has this report (subscription required for access) on an oral argument (access the audio via this link) that occurred before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today.

“In defense of the late 9th Circuit ‘liberal lion’ Judge Stephen Reinhardt”: Cathy A. Catterson, retired Clerk and Circuit Executive of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has this letter to the editor in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Susan Christensen named chief justice of Iowa Supreme Court”: Andrea May Sahouri of The Des Moines Register has this report.

New SCOTUS-related podcast episodes: This week’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast is titled “No Jonathans Or Pauls” and features law professors Leah Litman and Melissa Murray and attorney Jaime Santos and their special guests, law professors Sarah Sherman-Stokes and Danielle Citron.

And before you complain about the absence of “big media” from the SCOTUS-related podcast genre, yesterday the Westwood One Podcast Network launched “5-4,” a weekly podcast in which (according to the news release emailed to me) “[e]ach episode focuses on a pivotal case in which the Justices make one of the most important decisions in recent memory.” The first episode is titled “Bush v. Gore.”

“How the Supreme Court Allows Trump Lawyers to Weaponize Procedure: Premature applications for intervention by the high court quietly enable some of the worst administration policies.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at the Brennan Center for Justice.

“Lawrence Wallace, Supreme Court advocate with a famous footnote, dies at 88”: Harrison Smith of The Washington Post has written this obituary.

“Amy Klobuchar’s Bipartisan Record Includes Voting for Many Trump Judicial Nominees; The Minnesota senator is running for president as a pragmatist; But some Democrats and civil rights groups say she went too far in supporting judges chosen by the current administration”: Lisa Lerer and Nick Corasaniti had this article in yesterday’s issue of The New York Times.

“Senate Democrats block late-term abortion restrictions; Manchin, Casey cross aisle to vote with GOP but support falls short of 60-vote threshold”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“Small Texas Cities Sued Over Abortion Bans; ACLU says anti-abortion ‘sanctuaries’ are violating the Constitution”: Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Trump’s demands for Sotomayor, Ginsburg recusals sparked by Chicago case; A blistering dissent by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor triggering Trump’s ire came in a case filed by Cook County and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights”: Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ashley Parker of The Washington Post report that “Trump dials up his unusual battle with the judiciary.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Trump Criticizes Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg; President says they should recuse themselves from cases involving him.”

Nicholas Wu and Courtney Subramanian of USA Today have a report headlined “Trump: Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg should recuse themselves from cases involving him.”

Dave Boyer of The Washington Times reports that “Trump suggests Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg should recuse themselves in all of his cases.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Trump says 2 justices should sit out cases, but they decide.”

Steve Holland of Reuters reports that “Trump says liberal Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor should recuse.”

Jordan Fabian and Justin Sink of Bloomberg News report that “Trump Demands Sotomayor Recusal Over ‘Inappropriate’ Dissent.”

Devan Cole, Ariane de Vogue, and Betsy Klein of CNN report that “Trump calls for Sotomayor, Ginsburg to recuse themselves from ‘Trump-related’ cases as he has a lot at stake before the court.” Earlier, Joan Biskupic of CNN had a news analysis headlined “Trump’s unbroken pattern of disdain for the rule of law.”

Edmund DeMarche of Fox News reports that “Trump says Sotomayor, Ginsburg should recuse themselves from cases dealing with his administration.”

Eli Okun of Politico reports that “Trump calls for Sotomayor, Ginsburg to recuse themselves from cases dealing with his administration; Trump’s comments came after Sotomayor criticized the court’s conservative majority for granting a number of his administration’s emergency stay requests.”

And Brett Samuels of The Hill reports that “Trump suggests Sotomayor, Ginsburg should have to recuse themselves on ‘Trump related’ cases.”

“Supreme Court Rules for U.S. Agent Who Shot Mexican Teenager; In one of two 5-to-4 decisions Tuesday, the court said Congress had not authorized lawsuits over cross-border shootings; The justices also ruled against a death row inmate seeking resentencing”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justices find that parents of Mexican teen slain by Border Patrol agent cannot sue in U.S. courts.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court’s conservatives shield border agent in killing of unarmed teen in Mexico.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Tosses Lawsuit Against U.S. Border Patrol Agent Who Killed Mexican Teenager; Court’s 5-4 decision says U.S. legal claims against officer not allowed for cross-border shooting.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court denies Mexican family’s damages claim for cross-border shooting” and “Supreme Court denies new sentencing hearing for Arizona murderer.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Justices rule agent can’t be sued for cross-border shooting.”

And Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Ruling could halt lawsuit filed by family of teen killed in Nogales by border agent.”

“At Supreme Court, a Case on Abuse of the No-Fly List; Three Muslim men say F.B.I. agents tried to use the list to coerce them into becoming informants, in violation of a federal law protecting religious freedom”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Cruz scorches Sotomayor over court critique, turns tables on her dissent”: Ronn Blitzer of Fox News has this report.

“Donald Trump Wants the Courts to Answer Only to Him; We’ve gotten so used to his comments undermining judicial independence that no one is speaking up against them anymore”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Sniper Lee Boyd Malvo withdraws Supreme Court case after Va. passes parole for juveniles; Plea for resentencing ends; convicted murderer could seek release from Va. in two years but still faces six life terms in Md.” Tom Jackman has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in four argued cases.

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in McKinney v. Arizona, No.18-1109. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Rodriguez v. FDIC, No. 18-1269. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Hernández v. Mesa, No. 17-1678. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Monasky v. Taglieri, No. 18-935. Justices Thomas and Alito issued opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Trump Demands 2 Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases; The president ratcheted up a fight with a judicial system he sees as biased against him”: Peter Baker of The New York Times has this report.

“Among Those Pressing Trump to Weed Out Disloyalty: Clarence Thomas’s Wife; A group led by Ginni Thomas has targeted officials in the administration, and lobbied for its own preferred choices; As the president’s distrust in those serving him has grown, so has its sway.” Maggie Haberman has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.