“A Supreme Court justice voted to let law grads forgo the bar exam. Among them: his daughter.” Andrea Gallo and John Simerman of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans have this report.

“Atlanta-based court considers school’s transgender bathroom policy”: Last December, Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had an article that begins, “Judges on the federal appeals court in Atlanta on Thursday peppered lawyers with questions in a case that could set an important precedent for bathroom access by transgender high school students.”

Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this decision ruling in favor of the transgender student. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Jill A. Pryor joined. Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. issued a lengthy dissenting opinion that omitted the “respectfully” from its closing “I dissent.”

“The Originalist Disaster in Chiafalo“: Mike Rappaport has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Chaos? Irrelevant? Pandemic shifts Affordable Care Act legal fight.” Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has an article that begins, “A lot has happened since March 2, when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Texas’ bid to strike down the Affordable Care Act.”

“Is John Marshall Next?” Gerard N. Magliocca has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

In response, at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman has a post titled “Cancelling John Marshall? Will the Great Chief Justice be given the Roger Taney Treatment?“

“The Supreme Court Is Avoiding Talking About Race; Saying nothing often is saying something”: Law professor Neil S. Siegel has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Nodding to Roberts, 8th Circuit Lets Arkansas Anti-Abortion Restrictions Take Effect”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

And Maya Earls of Bloomberg Law reports that “Arkansas Abortion Laws Revived Based on Roberts Concurrence” (subscription required for full access).

You can access today’s per curiam ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“The Eleventh Circuit Grants Rehearing En Banc on the Victims’ Challenge to Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement; The full Court will consider whether Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can argue for invalidating the immunity provisions in the Epstein deal”: Paul Cassell has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

My earlier coverage of the now-vacated original three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here and here.

“The Anti-Abortion-Rights Movement Prepares to Build a Post-Roe World; As activists move closer to their goal of making abortion illegal, they have started planning for the infrastructure needed for a world with more babies — and recruiting major CEOs to bankroll their cause.” Emma Green of The Atlantic has this report.

“Roberts Court Draws Partisan Fire — and Rising Public Acclaim”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“House can sue to force former White House counsel Donald McGahn to comply with subpoena”: Ann E. Marimow and Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post have this report.

Lawrence Hurley and Jan Wolfe of Reuters report that “Appeals court rules for U.S. House over subpoena for ex-White House lawyer.”

Erik Larson of Bloomberg News reports that “Congress Wins Court Fight to Subpoena White House Officials.”

Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney of Politico report that “Appeals court rules McGahn must testify; In a 7-2 decision, the D.C. Circuit holds that the House can use the courts to enforce subpoenas for executive branch information.”

And Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court rules against Trump, says House can sue to enforce McGahn subpoena.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link. The en banc court today also issued this order, and a dissent therefrom, in a related case.