“Trump Asks Supreme Court to Restore His Ability to Block Twitter Followers; Appeals court said president violated individuals’ First Amendment rights when he blocked them after they criticized him”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Trump asks Supreme Court to let him block critics from following him on Twitter.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Trump asks Supreme Court to hear case over his right to block followers on Twitter.”

David Shepardson of Reuters reports that “U.S. asks Supreme Court to review decision requiring Trump to unblock critics on Twitter.”

Brian Fung of CNN reports that “Justice Department asks Supreme Court to let Trump block his Twitter critics.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Trump admin asks Supreme Court to review decision on Twitter blocks; Group of Twitter users sued after Trump blocked them, and they won at district and circuit court levels.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “White House asks Supreme Court to let Trump block critics on Twitter.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Trump asks Supreme Court to let him block critics on Twitter.”

And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Block Twitter Critics.”

You can view the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“The Supreme Court’s dangerous ‘shadow docket'”: David Cole has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Originalism: More than a Presumption; Most defenders of originalism agree with Vermeule that originalism needs a justification outside of itself.” John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Federalist Society Blocks Basic Judicial Ethics Rule”: James P. Donohue has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The DNC Refuses to Address the Elephant in the Room; The Supreme Court will be lost for a generation if Biden loses, dooming almost all progressive policy ideas; But no Democrats are talking about it”: Elie Mystal has this essay online at The Nation.

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Democratic platform calls for a bold remaking of the federal judiciary; It’s not nearly enough; Democrats are starting to learn how to play judicial hardball, but they still aren’t any good at it.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Ilya Somin has a post titled “Does the Democratic Platform Endorse Court-Packing? When it comes to the Supreme Court, the answer is clearly ‘no.’ Things are less clear when it comes to the lower federal courts.”

“Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Is Pivot in Coronavirus Cases; Chief Justice Roberts’s approach has followed a deference to local, state and federal authorities against legal challenges”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“AP Exclusive: Feds to seek death sentence for Boston bomber.” Michael Balsamo and Alanna Durkin Richer of The Associated Press have a report that begins, “The Justice Department will seek to reinstate a death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man who was convicted of carrying out the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Attorney General William Barr said Thursday.”

“Roberts’ Rules: How the Chief Justice Could Rein in Police Abuse of Power.” David Gans has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Oklahoma’s Appeal of Covid Abortion Order Dismissed as Moot”: Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on an unpublished per curiam decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday.

The majority opinion is unpublished, but the dissenting opinion is published: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday did something that you don’t see very often. A three-judge panel issued a majority opinion designated as unpublished, but the dissenting judge designated his dissent as published.

The final footnote to the published dissent of Circuit Judge Gregory A. Phillips explained:

I acknowledge that publishing a dissent is unusual when the majority does not publish its opinion. I publish this one because of the importance of relevant conduct in federal sentencings and the need for rulings explaining how it works. Unwarranted Guidelines enhancements lead to unwarranted prison time.

“Amazon Delivery Drivers Can Avoid Arbitration, 9th Cir. Says”: Erin Mulvaney of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service reports that “Amazon Loses Bid to Force Arbitration on Delivery Drivers.”

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

A kinder, gentler Seventh Circuit? On Tuesday, Seventh Circuit Judge Michael B. Brennan, in chambers, issued a decision rejecting the motion of defendant-appellee United States to dismiss an appeal due to the appellant’s deficient opening brief.

The decision recognized that the appellant’s attorney faced various extenuating circumstances and permits the filing of a substituted brief within seven days. Law360 reports on the decision in a report headlined “Atty Outed By Counsel Gets Mulligan On 7th Circ. Appeal” (subscription required for access).

Debra Cassens Weiss of ABA Journal previously reported on the federal district court’s decision now on appeal in a post titled “Federal judge tosses suit by gay lawyer who says his co-counsel outed him to al-Qaida client.”

“The Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’ is drawing increasing scrutiny”: Mark Walsh has this report online at the ABA Journal.

“Gun company can sue Grewal in Texas, federal appellate court rules; New Jersey attorney general sought to block company that sold plans to print firearms on 3-D printer”: David Wildstein of the New Jersey Globe has this report.

And Maeve Allsup of Bloomberg Law reports that “N.J. Battle Over 3D Gun Printing Instructions Revived on Appeal” (subscription required for full access).

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

Can’t tell the players without a scorecard: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision that was preceded by this description of the outcome:

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court with regard to the excessive-force claim against Defendants Dunning and Schadle, in which SILER, J., joined. MOORE, J., delivered the lead opinion as to all other issues. SILER, J. (pp. 33–35), delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Defendants Huff and Wedmore, in which NALBANDIAN, J., joined. NALBANDIAN, J., (pp. 36–47), delivered the opinion of the court with regard to the scope of the appeal (Part I), in which SILER, J. joined; Parts II, III, and IV of Judge Nalbandian’s opinion represent his dissent from Judge Moore’s majority opinion.

I don’t recall a longer description preceding any other three-judge Sixth Circuit panel’s ruling.

“Appeals court overturns judge’s decision involving a Cleveland EMS worker’s Facebook posts about Tamir Rice”: John Caniglia of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

Circuit Judge John K. Bush, who knows a thing or two about provocative internet posts, was on the three-judge panel and joined in the ruling.

“University of Kentucky Sees Non-Student’s Assault Claims Revived”: Peter Hayes of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Rapper 50 Cent loses legal fight with Rick Ross over ‘In Da Club’ remix”: Jan Wolfe of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access).

And Blake Brittain of Bloomberg Law reports that “Rapper Rick Ross Beats 50 Cent’s Claim Over ‘In Da Club’ Sample” (subscription required for full access).

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court to hear Obamacare case one week after Election Day”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.