“Small dollars, big changes: Web-based donations aimed to democratize our campaigns; They also radicalized both parties.” Law professor Richard Pildes has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Trump and the chief justice: Impeachment is over, but they’re not done with each other.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“Downloading public court documents costs a dime a page — is that legal? Federal courts use hefty PACER fees to pay for non-PACER projects.” Timothy B. Lee of Ars Technica has this report.

“Why Democrats Aren’t Naming Names”: At the “Law & Liberty” blog, John O. McGinnis has a post that begins, “Candidate Donald Trump’s decision to provide a list of jurists from which he would appoint his first Supreme Court justice was both a brilliant political stroke and an act in the public interest — two qualities that are rarely combined.”

Recent Second Circuit decision provides minimal explanation of that court’s “mini‐en banc process”: In exactly three months from today, this blog will celebrate its 18th birthday, after which its posts will be expected to behave as mature adults. But until then . . .

Whether you have been reading this blog for all or a significant part of its nearly 18-year history, you know that one recurring theme over the many years has been the Second Circuit‘s great reluctance to grant en banc rehearing. Heck, until recently that court could not even agree on consistently referring to the process as “in banc” or “en banc” review.

A ruling that a unanimous three-judge Second Circuit panel issued on Monday has confirmed that the court’s reluctance to grant full-court review has essentially been a sham all along, as a so-called “mini-en banc process” exists that allows for the overruling of existing precedent so long as sufficient votes do not exist to necessitate en banc review to determine whether or not the overruling should in fact occur.

Let me explain further. Ordinarily, en banc review is required for a federal appellate court to overturn existing precedent from a three-judge panel. By contrast, the Second Circuit’s “mini-en banc process” works as follows. If a subsequent three-judge panel wants to overturn existing Second Circuit precedent, it merely needs to circulate its opinion to the rest of the Court. Then, unless sufficient votes exist to take the case en banc to preserve existing precedent, the denial of en banc review will result in the overruling of existing precedent in the absence of en banc review.

As a result, the Second Circuit’s extreme reluctance to grant en banc review simultaneously makes it impossible and easier than ever to overrule precedent. I wonder whether any legal academics have written to discuss whether this mini-en banc procedure, which the Seventh Circuit and perhaps some other circuits also use on occasion, in fact complies with the spirit and intent of the ordinary operation of the en banc process.

A moment’s worth of online research has revealed that in January 2016, the New York Law Journal published an article headlined “Mini-En Banc Review In the Second Circuit” by Steven M. Witzel and Samuel P. Groner.

“John Roberts’ legacy will be forever entwined with Trump’s”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Court rules in favor of Philadelphia’s ban on asking job applicants their salary history”: Anna Orso of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

Today’s ruling cast doubt on whether the City of Philadelphia in fact needs to worry about just how very expensive Miguel A. Estrada‘s hourly rate happens to be.

“Courts are the next front in Trump’s battle over presidential powers”: Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe of Reuters have this report.

“Chief Justice Roberts presided impartially, yet left questions whether Trump’s trial was a fair one”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“WV Supreme Court stopped impeachment of justices almost 2 years ago; lawmakers still trying to undo it”: Lacie Pierson has this front page article in today’s edition of The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail.

“Chief Justice John Roberts emerges unscathed from Trump’s Senate impeachment trial”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“After 2 Supreme Court wins, Florida man gets $875K from city”: Curt Anderson of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Few people have fought any city hall all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, but Fane Lozman did it twice. Now the Florida city he’s battled since 2006 is going to pay him thousands of dollars in legal fees.”

“This Trump Judge Tormented a Trans Woman — Because He Could; Stuart Kyle Duncan had a history of anti-LGBTQ bigotry before he joined the bench; Now he’s inflicting his pettiness and cruelty on vulnerable litigants”: Elie Mystal has this essay in the February 17, 2020 issue of The Nation magazine.

“Another Unnecessary Qualified-Immunity Appeal; When defendants flaunt the jurisdictional limits on the scope of interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals, everyone loses”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Monday.

“Stormy Daniels picks new fight with President Trump over defamation ruling”: Priscella Vega of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Lawyers for Trump and Stormy Daniels face off in court over libel suit; Federal appeals judges heard arguments in Daniels’ effort to revive a lawsuit she filed over a hard-hitting Trump tweet.”

Martin Macias Jr. of Courthouse News Service reports that “Stormy Daniels Lobbies Ninth Circuit to Revive Suit Against Trump.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Donald Trump Defends SLAPP Rules Often Used by Media Orgs to Escape Nuisance Lawsuits; The ongoing Stormy Daniels saga is raising the prospect for strange bedfellows.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted on YouTube at this link the video of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel.

“The Supreme Court: Depoliticizing the Judiciary.” The organization The New Center posted online today this report written by Julia Baumel.

“Trump Judge Argues Voters Can’t Sue States Over Voting Rights; Judge Lisa Branch is launching a new assault on the Voting Rights Act”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link. And the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Elizabeth L. Branch can be accessed here.

“DLJ joins with other top law reviews to produce joint issue celebrating women’s achievements in law; Bara ’20 leads first-ever collaboration marking centennial of 19th Amendment ratification and women occupying editor-in-chief slot at Top 16 law schools”: Duke Law recently issued this news release.

You can access the entire Women & Law issue, in which the Lisa Blatt essay that I posted earlier today appears, at this link.

“The ‘Living Constitution’ Denied the Vote to Generations; If only late 19th-century courts had followed the original meaning of the 15th Amendment”: Frank Scaturro had this op-ed in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Why Are Supreme Court Justices Registered as Democrats and Republicans?” Gabe Roth of Fix the Court has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“Supreme Court justice with Peninsula ties set to retire; Charles Wiggins says it’s time to hang up the robes”: Brian McLean has this front page article in today’s edition of The Peninsula Daily News of Port Angeles, Washington.

“A Republic, If We Can Keep It: The government set up by James Madison and the other Founders requires a virtuous public and virtuous leaders — or the whole system will fail.” Online at The Atlantic, Adam J. White has an essay that begins, “In the days leading up to the Senate’s impeachment trial, some people hoped that Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the trial, would use his position to send a strong message to the senators on what the Constitution requires of them.”

“Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Kagan to attend State of the Union”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Trump administration and GOP-led states ask Supreme Court to hold off on deciding Obamacare’s fate”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN have this report.

“Mitch McConnell is terrible but John Roberts is actually the worst”: Whitney Ross Manzo has this essay online at The Hill.

“Kavanaugh confirmation battle hangs over Trump impeachment trial; No one knew how Kavanaugh’s emotionally raw confirmation would conclude; Not so much for Trump”: Sarah Ferris, Heather Caygle, and Jesse Naranjo of Politico have this report.

“Shut Up, They Advised: A committee on judicial standards ignores the Constitution to rule against the Federalist Society.” David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Reflections of a Lady Lawyer”: Lisa Blatt has this essay online (available in PDF and HTML formats) at the Texas Law Review.

“Court may bless refunds for online access to judicial records; Judges express fears that government stance could lead to fees subsidizing Supreme Court curtains or ‘gold-plated toilets'”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has a report that begins, “A lawsuit accusing the federal court system of treating nearly a billion dollars in online access fees like a slush fund got a favorable reception on Monday from an appeals court, where the main question that judges seemed interested in debating was how to calculate the extent to which the public was bilked.”

“Should the public pay a dime for access to court records?” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law reports that “Federal Circuit Hammers Government on Use of PACER Fees” (subscription required for full access).

Jacqueline Thomsen of The National Law Journal has an article headlined “Gold-Plated Toilets and SCOTUS Curtains: Federal Circuit Questions Proper Use of PACER Fees; The judges offered up hypotheticals about when PACER fees could be used by the federal judiciary, like the redecoration of judges’ chambers.”

You can access via this link (52.4 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“Appealed Too Soon? The Saving Graces of Pa. Rule of Appellate Procedure 905(a)(5).” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“The Alarming Prospect of the Supreme Court Deciding the 2020 Election; If the country’s nine justices wind up deciding the presidential race, things could get very ugly very quickly”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Justice Clarence Thomas Questions Proposal to Bar Judges From Membership in Ideological Groups; Ethics proposal by federal judiciary’s policy-making body would tighten guidance letting them belong to two organizations but not take leadership roles”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

In the February 2020 issue of ABA Journal magazine: David L. Hudson Jr. has an article headlined “Is it time to reevaluate the standard for legal malpractice in criminal cases?”

And Jenny B. Davis has an interview headlined “This Alaska lawyer blends life and law as a tribal court judge and an Orthodox Jew.”

“Will the Justices skip the 2020 State of the Union? CJ Rehnquist skipped the 1999 address during the impeachment trial, and all 9 Justices skipped the 2000 address”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”