“Wisconsin Is a Warning: On Wednesday night, the state’s highest court issued a hyperpartisan ruling that endangers thousands of lives.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Very Real Problem of Both Trump and Pence Getting COVID-19 at the Same Time; If the president and the vice president become incapacitated simultaneously, the country could face a constitutional crisis”: Law professor Brian C. Kalt has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Supreme Court Rejects Bid for Virus Protections in Texas Prison; The case was brought by two older inmates who said their lives were endangered by prison policies”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report on an order that the U.S. Supreme Court issued this evening.

“Sen. Susan Collins’ challenger sounds alarm over next Supreme Court vacancy”: Seth McLaughlin of The Washington Times has this report.

“Wisconsin is opening, slowly, after coronavirus restrictions struck down by the state Supreme Court”: Ashley Luthern of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “Communities, businesses scramble after Wisconsin court tosses stay-at-home order.”

And Jennifer Calfas and Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal report that “Wisconsin Governor Urges Social Distancing After Court Blocks Statewide Lockdown; Divided court found state illegally launched extensive restrictions without input from legislature.”

“Judge steers Flynn case into ‘completely uncharted waters'”: Chris Megerian of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case”: Mark Chenoweth has this post online at Forbes.

“In Oracle v. Google, the Supreme Court Should Protect Copyright in the Tech Industry”: Adam Mossoff has this blog post online at The Federalist Society.

“A New Textualist Argument in the Title VII Cases, and the Risks of Corpus Linguistics”: Ryan Nees has this post at the “Expert Forum” blog of the American Constitution Society.

“Outsider Tapped in Flynn Case Regarded as ‘Straight Arrow’; John Gleeson, a retired federal judge and former mob prosecutor, will oppose the Justice Department’s move to drop a charge against President Trump’s former national security adviser”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“Nothing to Draw When Nothing to See Leaves SCOTUS Artists Idle”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Judges Are Umpires, Not Ringmasters; Sullivan invites outsiders to weigh in on the Flynn case — an unconstitutional judicial power grab”: Law professor Alan M. Dershowitz has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The Supreme Court and the Lawyers’ Guilds; The Justices may take up a challenge to forced bar association fees”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

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 Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Court revives lawsuit targeting President Trump’s business dealings at D.C. hotel”: Ann E. Marimow and Jonathan O’Connell of The Washington Post have this report.

Sharon LaFraniere of The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Allows Emoluments Suit Against Trump to Proceed; The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond rejected the president’s request to dismiss a case brought by the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia regarding his Washington hotel.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Revives Maryland, D.C. Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump; Ruling clears the way for attorneys general to begin gathering evidence about the president’s businesses.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Federal appeals court shoots down Trump attempt to quash emoluments suit.”

Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Court reinstates lawsuit over Trump’s hotel profits.”

Jan Wolfe and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters report that “U.S. appeals court rejects Trump bid to escape anti-corruption lawsuit.”

Erik Larson of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Faces Emoluments Lawsuit After Court Tosses His Win.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Appeals court gives green light to Trump emoluments lawsuit; The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s ownership of a D.C. hotel violates the Constitution’s ban on receiving financial benefits from the states or foreign leaders.”

Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Appeals court lets emoluments lawsuit against Trump proceed.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Federal court revives emoluments lawsuit against Trump over DC hotel.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Appeals court greenlights emoluments suit against Trump; The president will need relief from the Supreme Court to block inquiries into foreign patronage of his D.C. hotel.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court rules against Trump on Emoluments Clause.”

And Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reports that “Emoluments Suit Against Trump Advanced by Full 4th Circuit.”

The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today issued two en banc rulings in these cases, both of which were decided by identical 9-to-6 votes. You can access the ruling in In re: Trump at this link. And you can access the ruling in District of Columbia v. Trump at this link.

Because Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory was technically appointed to the Fourth Circuit by President George W. Bush, one cannot accurately say that all participating judges appointed by Democratic presidents were in the majority, while all participating judges appointed by Republican presidents were in dissent.