“Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Is Going to Use Fox News Arguments to Undo the State’s COVID-19 Restrictions”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Judge Says He Faced No Political Pressure From McConnell To Retire”: Susan Davis and Nina Totenberg of NPR have this report.

“Young McConnell Protégé Faces Scrutiny as He Seeks Powerful Judgeship; No stranger to partisan warfare at 37, Judge Justin Walker will go before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering him for a seat on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia”: Elizabeth Williamson and Rebecca R. Ruiz of The New York Times have this report.

Earlier, Ruiz and Ben Protess of The New York Times had an article headlined “Trump Nominee Is Among Judges Opposed to Banning Membership in Conservative Group; Judge Justin Walker joined a bevy of judges, many appointees of the president, in railing against an ethics proposal on the Federalist Society.”

Andrew Wolfson of The Courier Journal of Louisville, Kentucky reports that “Judge asks for investigation of McConnell’s role in creating federal bench vacancy.” And Phillip M. Bailey of The Courier Journal has an article headlined “5 things to know about Judge Justin Walker and his backing by Sen. Mitch McConnell.”

Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law reports that “D.C. Circuit Pick Once Rated ‘Not Qualified’ Gets Top ABA Mark.”

Jordain Carney of The Hill reports that “Graham to hold confirmation hearing this week for controversial Trump court pick.”

And Li Zhou of Vox has a report headlined “‘Leave no vacancy behind’: Mitch McConnell remains laser-focused on judges amid coronavirus; Democrats, meanwhile, are wondering why a judicial nominee is even on the docket when lawmakers haven’t approved more stimulus.”

“Free coverage for contraceptives? Supreme Court again considers religious exemptions”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Last Friday, Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence J. VanDyke issued his first published opinion for that court: You can access the opinion at this link.

“Court Denies Trump’s Bid To Block Immigrants Who Can’t Afford Health Care”: Jason Hopkins of the Daily Caller has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Tech Savvy Ninth Circuit Leading the Way During the COVID-19 Pandemic”: Last Friday, the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release.

“Drake Board Member Lacks Claim Over Son’s Title IX Expulsion”: Patrick Dorrian of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued yesterday.

“How close is President Trump to his goal of record-setting judicial appointments?” Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of The Brookings Institution.

“Conservative justices appear skeptical of authority for Safer at Home extension to battle coronavirus”: Ed Treleven of The Wisconsin State Journal has this report.

Molly Beck of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “GOP lawsuit to block Tony Evers’ order to stay home in hands of Supreme Court.”

Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post reports that “Wisconsin state Supreme Court hears GOP lawmakers’ challenge to stay-at-home order; One justice compared the legality of the order to the World War II Japanese internment camps.”

And in earlier commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A Republican lawsuit could force Wisconsin to reopen immediately; If successful, the GOP lawsuit could permanently disable the state’s public health agency.”

WisconsinEye has posted on YouTube at this link the video of today’s Zoom oral argument before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

“Judges rule in favor of Chicago in sanctuary city fight with Trump Justice Department”: John Byrne of The Chicago Tribune has this report.

Ted Hesson of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court rules against Trump attempt to withhold funds from ‘sanctuary’ cities.”

A.D. Quig of Crain’s Chicago Business reports that “City Hall scores a win in sanctuary city fight with Trump administration; Lightfoot said when she got the news that the appeals court sided with Chicago, she ‘let out a cheer.’”

And Patricia Manson of Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports that “Chicago scores victory in sanctuary city battle.”

You can access last Thursday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Anheuser-Busch Can Run Miller, Coors ‘Corn Syrup’ Ads”: Blake Brittain of Bloomberg Law has this report.

Lorraine Bailey of Courthouse News Service reports that “Seventh Circuit Sides With Budweiser in Advertising Beef With Miller; A three-judge panel vacated an injunction preventing Bud Light ads from referring to its competitor’s use of corn syrup.”

And at the “MarketingDaily” blog of MediaPost, P.J. Bednarski has an entry titled “Simple: Court Says Bud Light’s ‘Corn Syrup’ Ad Tells It Like It Is.”

Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Appeals court lets Beshear’s ban on in-church services amid coronavirus pandemic stand”: Billy Kobin of The Louisville Courier Journal has this report.

Karla Ward of The Lexington Herald Leader reports that “Federal appeals court rules that Beshear must allow Louisville church’s drive-in services.”

Alex Ebert of Bloomberg Law reports that “Virus Orders Can’t Bar Kentucky Drive’In Church, Court Rules.”

And Jon Parton of Courthouse News Service reports that “Sixth Circuit Upholds Kentucky Ban on Mass Gatherings.”

You can access Saturday’s per curiam order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Sixth Circuit Revives Copyright Dispute Over Everly Brothers Song”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Former Richardson mayor, developer get new bribery trial due to court officer’s meddling with juror; Laura and Mark Jordan will get a new trial because of a court security officer’s blundering attempts to reassure an upset and waffling juror, the judge ruled”: Kevin Krause of The Dallas Morning News has this report.

And Stephen Young of the Dallas Observer reports that “Former Richardson Mayor, Husband Get New Corruption Trial.”

You can access last Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Barr urges Trump administration to back off call to fully strike down Obamacare”: Kaitlan Collins, Joan Biskupic, Evan Perez, and Tami Luhby of CNN have this report.

Fifth Circuit issues so-called “Zombie Action” en banc decision addressing how to obtain a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction where some defendants were dismissed without prejudice: You can access yesterday’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

The reward for most entertaining opinion goes (as it often has) to Circuit Judge Don R. Willett, who issued an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Circuit Judge James C. Ho wrote the majority opinion on behalf of a total of 10 judges and also issued a solo concurring opinion to respond to a lengthy dissenting opinion, which Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham issued on behalf of himself and three other judges.

“The Supreme Court hears the biggest presidential immunity cases since Nixon; The Trump subpoena cases are about whether this president is above the law”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

Access the live audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in USAID v. Alliance For Open Society International, Inc. Via C-SPAN at this link.

“U.S. Supreme Court acts quickly to settle whether ban on split juries is retroactive”: John Simerman of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to weigh case over nonunanimous jury convictions.”

“Tax-Avoidance Case, Suits Against IRS Get Supreme Court Review”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Justice Thomas’s Question Time: Telephone arguments aren’t ideal, but here’s a significant silver lining.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Pennsylvania: U.S. Supreme Court should not intervene in coronavirus shutdown.” Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this report on the response Pennsylvania filed today to an application for stay pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court Hears First Arguments via Phone; The conference call started with the usual Oyez! chant, but that was almost the only traditional thing about the arguments in a trademark case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court takes modest but historic step with teleconference hearings.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Coronavirus pushes Supreme Court to allow first-ever live broadcast of arguments.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court’s First Teleconferenced Argument, Heard Live, Is Practically Glitch-Free; No mention of the ‘mute’ button; Clarence Thomas proves a lively questioner in relatively dry hearing.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court hears first case by telephone, with audio livestreamed.”

Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press have a report headlined “Called to order: Supreme Court holds 1st arguments by phone.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Smooth sailing in U.S. Supreme Court’s first teleconference case; Thomas joins fray.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Tele-Argument Brings Minor Hiccups, Thomas Questions.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court makes history with oral arguments by phone; But it’s business as usual for justices; For the first time, the audio of the argument was available live, streamed on news websites and available on C-SPAN.”

From CNN, Ariane de Vogue has a report headlined “‘Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!’ The Supreme Court is live on the air.” And Devan Cole, Joan Biskupic, and de Vogue have a report headlined “Clarence Thomas breaks silence on bench during Supreme Court’s first remote oral argument.”

Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News have reports headlined “Supreme Court holds unprecedented, remote oral arguments as cases move forward despite coronavirus” and “Justice Thomas asks rare round of questions during Supreme Court oral arguments, in teleconference session.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Virus prompts first-ever arguments by phone at Supreme Court; Protocol for conference-call session stirs normally mum Clarence Thomas to ask several questions.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court sails through first online oral argument; Roberts attempts to keep everything business as usual.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Justice Clarence Thomas breaks silence during Supreme Court’s first teleconference hearing.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from my laptop: Arguments.com.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Live-Streams Oral Argument For 1st Time In History.”

In commentary, online at The New York Times, columnist Jesse Wegman has an essay titled “Live From D.C., It’s the Supreme Court! The court heard oral arguments remotely, and broadcast the audio live, for the first time Monday; It was a spectacle made for the radio age.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael McGough hsa an essay titled “Clarence Thomas speaks and other notable events from Supreme Court livestream.”

And online at CNN, Elie Honig has an essay titled “The sky didn’t fall when the Supreme Court went live.”

“Religion ruling expected to be issue in judge’s nomination”: Ryan Lovelace of The Washington Times has an article that begins, “Judge Justin Walker’s ruling in the church-vs.-state showdown over stay-at-home orders is expected to be a key issue Tuesday when the Senate considers his nomination to the nation’s premier federal appellate court.”

“Meet the Trump Judge Arguing the Government Can Execute People Any Way It Wants; The success of these judges, it turns out, is in part attributable to cold, hard cash”: Lisa Needham has this essay online at Rewire.News.

“Appeals Court Vacancy Is Under Scrutiny Ahead of Contested Confirmation Hearing; The chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit publicly advanced a call by a progressive group for an ethics investigation into the circumstances of a plum vacancy”: Carl Hulse will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court Just Proved Its Secretive Rules Are Silly and Counterproductive; The justices proved they can do good law in public; We’ll soon learn whether they dare do bad law right before our eyes”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Qualified Immunity: A Free Pass for Abuse?” Kenneth Jost has this post at his “Jost on Justice” blog.

“Courtroom access: Let’s talk data — the public line.” Amy Howe has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Stay Frustrated”: You can access via this link today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast featuring law professors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw and their guest, Emily Bazelon.

“The Supreme Court’s Surreal, Stilted, and Surprisingly Normal Streaming Oral Argument; The Chief strictly kept time, Justice Thomas asked questions, and I think Justice Sotomayor was on mute”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Access the live audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. Via C-SPAN at this link.

“The Fight Over the Affordable Care Act and Birth Control Is Back at the Supreme Court”: David H. Gans has this essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court to hear 2 cases about when religious employers can ignore civil rights laws; The stakes in the Supreme Court’s ‘ministerial exemption’ cases are profound”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.