“North Dakota Supreme Court justice recovering from COVID-19: ‘Be careful and stay safe.'” Jack Dura of The Bismarck Tribune has an article that begins, “North Dakota’s longest-serving Supreme Court justice could be released this week from the hospital while still recovering from COVID-19.”

“Progressives seethe as Democrats largely ignore Supreme Court at convention; The next president could appoint several justices and reshape the court for a generation. But convention speakers barely mentioned it”: Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.

“Republicans have a strong message on the courts; Democrats need one, too; The Supreme Court can make or break the liberal agenda”: Law professor Melissa Murray has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Trump’s Court Redo Is Set to Be Even Broader If He Wins New Term”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Which Side Are ‘Liberal’ Lawyers On? Many public-interest attorneys also represent corporations against their workers.” Leo Gertner recently had this essay online at The American Prospect.

“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.

“Lezmond Mitchell’s Death Sentence Is an Affront to Navajo Sovereignty; Trump should commute his sentence to life without parole before his Aug. 26 execution date”: Carl Slater has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Don’t Blame the SCOTUS DACA Ruling for Difficulties Undoing Trump’s Damage”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“How the Supreme Court Dropped the Ball on the Right to Protest; Over the years, courts have carefully updated our speech protections while mostly ignoring the freedom of assembly; Now they may have a chance to change that”: Kia Rahnama has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“The Justice Souter Speech Every Law Student Should Read”: Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Appeals court rules in favor of Robert Kraft in Florida prostitution case, tosses video footage”: Travis Andersen and John R. Ellement of The Boston Globe have this report.

Sean Philip Cotter of The Boston Herald reports that “Florida judge throws out Robert Kraft Orchids of Asia tapes on appeal.”

Michael Bonner of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Florida court rules Robert Kraft’s rights were violated when police secretly recorded him at massage parlor, bars use of video in trial.”

David Ovalle of The Miami Herald reports that “Florida appeals court says Robert Kraft massage-parlor videos were illegally obtained.”

Marc Freeman of The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that “Patriots owner Robert Kraft defeats Florida in prostitution case appeal.”

Melissa E. Holsman of The Palm Beach Post reports that “Patriots owner Robert Kraft wins appeal over police video recorded at day spa.”

Ken Belson of The New York Times reports that “Court Upholds Decision to Dismiss Video in Robert Kraft Case; The Patriots’ owner refused to take a plea in the case involving visits to a Florida spa, instead arguing that police surveillance violated his Fourth Amendment rights.”

Matt Bonesteel of The Washington Post reports that “Robert Kraft could avoid criminal charge after appeals court bars day-spa videos.”

Andrew Beaton of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judge Rules Video of Robert Kraft in Massage Parlor Was Taken Illegally; The New England Patriots owner and others were charged with misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution last year.”

Jorge Fitz-Gibbon of The New York Post reports that “Florida court blocks Robert Kraft massage parlor videos from trial.”

Dennis Young of The New York Daily News reports that “Robert Kraft video was illegally obtained by police, another Florida court rules.”

Terry Spencer and Curt Anderson of The Associated Press have a report headlined “Court: Secret videos can’t be used in Kraft massage case.”

Jonathan Levin of Bloomberg News reports that “Robert Kraft Sex Video Violated His Rights, Florida Court Rules.”

You can access today’s ruling of Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal at this link.

The return of Roe v. Wade: Last night in the Bronx, Tampa Bay Rays relief pitcher Chaz Roe pitched to New York Yankees second baseman Tyler Wade with one on and two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning. I took this photo of the plate appearance. Wade hit a fly ball to center field that was caught to end the game. Thus, in this rematch, as at the U.S. Supreme Court, Roe prevailed.

The at-bat did not escape the attention of SB Nation. Its Pinstripe Alley game recap from Tyler Norton observed, “And, lastly, after years of waiting, we finally got Roe vs. Wade! Rays closer Chaz Roe finished the game off by forcing Tyler Wade to fly out. Incredible.”

And its DRays Bay game recap from Ashley MacLennan reported, “Chaz Roe came in for the bottom of the ninth to shut things down and give the Rays a win, and with the looming prospect of Roe facing pinch runner Tyler Wade, making it Roe v. Wade, I kid you not Brian Anderson gleefully declared ‘hasn’t that already been decided?’ What a day.”

“The Inconspicuous DHS: The Supreme Court, Celebrity Culture, and Justice David H. Souter.” Law professor Chad M. Oldfather has posted this essay on SSRN (via “SCOTUSblog“).

“No serious lawyer would argue what Trump’s Justice Department is arguing”: George T. Conway III and Lawrence S. Robbins have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Liberals counter Trump with ‘radical’ court-packing agenda”: Ryan Lovelace of The Washington Times has this report.

“Florida judges stand out during felon voting rights case; The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit could rule on Amendment 4 before November, but it’s likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court”: Lawrence Mower of The Tampa Bay Times has this report.

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Court struggles with felon vote in Fla., case could determine participation in November; The state allows felons to vote after completing the terms of their sentences, including fines; But many cannot afford to pay all their court costs.”

Gary Fineout of Politico reports that “Federal appeals court considers whether to uphold Florida felon voting law.”

Dara Kam of News Service of Florida has a report headlined “Will convicted felons get to vote in November? Appeals judges hear arguments in Florida showdown.”

Alex Pickett of Courthouse News Service reports that “En Banc 11th Circuit Takes Up Voting Rights of Florida Felons; The case could have lasting implications for politics statewide and nationally as Florida’s elections typically have razor-thin margins.”

And Lina Ruiz of WUFT News reports that “Full Federal Appeals Panel Considers Landmark Florida Voting Rights Case.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s en banc oral argument of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“Oregon Supreme Court to determine scope of nonunanimous jury fallout”: Conrad Wilson of Oregon Public Broadcasting has this report.