“Stephen F. Williams, RIP”: Michael S. Greve has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Missing Decisions”: Law professor Merritt McAlister has posted this interesting article online at SSRN.

The article’s abstract begins, “Significant numbers of federal appellate merits terminations — those decisions resolving appeals and other proceedings on the merits — are missing from Westlaw and Lexis, the leading commercial legal databases.”

“A Few More Thoughts on Supreme Court Secrecy”: Daniel Epps has this post at “Dorf on Law,” a blog to which he now will be contributing.

“Appeals court seems unlikely to order judge to immediately dismiss Michael Flynn’s case”: Ann E. Marimow and Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post have this report.

Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Weighs Whether to Permit Inquiry Into Flynn Case Dismissal; A majority of the judges on a federal appeals court signaled that they may allow a court hearing into the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case.”

Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Justice Department Hints Decision to Drop Michael Flynn Case Came From Nonpublic Information; ‘It may be possible’ the attorney general had information he couldn’t share concerning former Trump national security adviser, says acting solicitor general.”

Kristine Phillips of USA Today reports that “Michael Flynn’s efforts to force federal judge to dismiss case faces a skeptical appeals court.”

Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “AG Barr sought to dismiss Flynn case based on ‘undisclosed’ evidence, DOJ attorney says.”

Eric Tucker of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court seems wary of ordering dismissal of Flynn case.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Judges appear reluctant to immediately end case against Trump ex-aide Flynn.”

Erik Larson of Bloomberg News reports that “Michael Flynn Faces Skeptical Appeals Court in Case-Dismissal Fight.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Appeals court likely to let judge decide whether to drop Michael Flynn charges; The issue for the appeals court is whether Flynn’s lawyers jumped the gun by seeking a writ of mandamus instead of waiting for the judge to rule.”

Katelyn Polantz and Cat Gloria of CNN report that “Appeals court judges push back at request to dismiss Michael Flynn case.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “DC Circuit Court grills lawyers in Flynn case over whether case should be dropped; The full court heard the case after a panel ruled in Flynn’s favor.”

Dan Mangan and Kevin Breuninger of CNBC report that “Government lawyer suggests Attorney General Barr had secret reasons for dropping Michael Flynn criminal case.”

Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney of Politico reports that “Federal appeals court skeptical of Michael Flynn’s effort to immediately dismiss criminal charge; If the appeals court rules against Flynn, it’s likely to create a vivid pre-election spectacle.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court appears wary of dropping Flynn charges.”

And Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News Service reports that “Flynn Argument Against Judge Falls Flat for Full DC Circuit.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s three hour and forty-eight minute en banc oral argument of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“New York State Defeats Challenge to Gun Licensing Laws”: Maeve Allsup of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Woman Sentenced To 10 Years In Prison For Transportation Of A Minor With The Intent Of Committing A Criminal Sexual Act”: The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico issued this news release back in September 2018.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this decision vacating the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial.

The opinion of the court begins, “Once again, we are called upon to explain how a federal government in which Puerto Ricans have no vote may regulate them more extensively than it can most every other American citizen.”

“The Supreme Court’s Most Partisan Decisions Are Flying Under the Radar; Through its ‘shadow docket,’ the court is quietly shaping the rules around elections, COVID regulations, immigration, and the federal death penalty”: Law professor Steve Vladeck has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Michigan Legislative Aides Who Revealed Sex Scandal Cleared”: 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.

“Judge Stephen F. Williams, 1936-2020”: Peter Conti-Brown, Kristina Daugirdas, Daniel E. Ho, Anne Joseph O’Connell, and Nicholas R. Parrillo have this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Federal Judge’s Link to U.S. Attorney’s Office Unwinds Verdict”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report on a ruling that the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Memorializing Miscarriages of Justice”: Austin Sarat has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Deliberate Indifference”: At his “Dorf on Law” blog, Michael C. Dorf has a post that begins, “There is so much that is wrong with the Supreme Court’s order last week in Barnes v. Ahlman that it is hard to know where to begin.”

“The Supreme Court’s enigmatic ‘shadow docket,’ explained; How the Supreme Court hides major conservative victories in plain sight”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Stephen F. Williams: Personal Reflections by a Last Clerk.” Nathaniel Zelinsky has this guest post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Justice Department bid to drop criminal case against Michael Flynn returns to court”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court to rehear ex-Trump aide Flynn’s bid to end criminal case.”

Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Appeals court will rehear request to dismiss Michael Flynn’s case.”

C. Ryan Barber of The National Law Journal has an article headlined “Flynn’s Pursuit of ‘Unicorn of Remedies’ Presents Broad Questions of Judicial Power; ‘Mandamus is the unicorn of remedies. It’s an exceptional remedy — it’s given in extraordinary circumstances,’ one veteran Washington lawyer says; The D.C. Circuit’s en banc hearing in the Michael Flynn case confronts the Trump-era leadership of the Justice Department, the scope of power of federal trial judges.”

And in commentary, in today’s edition of The Washington Post, Dayna Zolle has an op-ed titled “What a 1924 case from Montana says about dismissing the Flynn prosecution.”

Today’s en banc rehearing oral argument of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. eastern time, and that court will livestream the audio of the proceedings via its YouTube channel.

“Republicans appeal R.I. mail-ballot ruling to U.S. Supreme Court”: Patrick Anderson of The Providence Journal has this report.

And Marshall Cohen, Katelyn Polantz, and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Republicans ask Supreme Court to intervene in Rhode Island case involving witness requirements for absentee ballots.”

“Progressive Groups Prepare To Reshape The Courts Under A Biden Presidency; They’re already making mental lists of potential nominees”: Jennifer Bendery and Amanda Terkel of HuffPost have this report.

“A Justice — or a Court — of Contradictions? The Court’s inconsistencies may be a function of the peculiarities of our political system, not the peculiarities of particular justices.” At the “Law & Liberty” blog, Jesse Merriam has this review of law professor Richard L. Hasen‘s book, “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.”

“Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Defending Individuals and Constitutional Freedoms.” David L. Hudson Jr. has this post at Freedom Forum.

“RBG’s Departure Might Look A Lot Like Thurgood Marshall’s”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“The Law Has Lost a Giant: The Legacy of Judge Stephen Williams.” Aaron L. Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“It Really Is Time to Get Rid of the Filibuster”: Jeffrey Toobin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“For Justices, the Pandemic Is What It Is”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“The Whole Concept of ‘Unlawful Assembly’ Is a Mess; ‘Unlawful assembly’ is like ‘illegal writing’ or ‘forbidden religious exercise’: There surely may be such a thing, but what qualifies?” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“A Pure Interlocutory Bivens Appeal? The Bivens question can tag along with a qualified-immunity appeal. But what if there are no grounds for the qualified-immunity appeal?” Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020; Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament”: Dan McLaughlin has this essay online at National Review.

“Justice Thomas maps own course, at wheel of his 40-foot bus”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has never been afraid to turn right when his colleagues turn left, or in any direction really as long as there’s a place to plug in his 40-foot refitted tour bus at the end of the day.”

“Stephen F. Williams, longtime federal appeals judge in D.C., dies of coronavirus at 83”: Fredrick Kunkle of The Washington Post has this report.

“Statement from the Court about the Passing of Judge Stephen F. Williams”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued this statement today.

“What Sonia Sotomayor Told a 10-Year-Old Girl: Reflecting on the words of a Supreme Court justice and women’s path to political equality.” Jorge Ramos has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Epstein’s victims get second chance at justice against sex offender in appeals court”: Jay Weaver of The Miami Herald has this report.

In today’s edition of The South Florida Sun Sentinel, Mario Ariza has an article headlined “Jeffrey Epstein’s victims win a second shot at justice.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky has an article headlined “Appeals court will reconsider whether Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal was legal.”

Chris Riotta of The Independent (UK) has an article headlined “Jeffrey Epstein: Appeals court offers sex offender’s victims a second chance at justice; Court to determine whether a previous decision not to charge Epstein, who killed himself in federal custody last year while awaiting child sex trafficking charges, was signed in violation of his victims’ rights.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Appeals court to review legality of Epstein plea deal.”

And Izzy Kapnick of Courthouse News Service reports that “Full 11th Circuit Agrees to Rehear Case Brought by Epstein Victims.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Eleventh Circuit order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.

“11th Circuit Rules Florida School’s Transgender Bathroom Policy Unconstitutional”: Kayla Goggin of Courthouse News Service has this report.

Li Cohen of CBS News reports that “Federal court rules that transgender students must be allowed to use bathrooms that match their gender.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman has a post titled “The Eleventh Circuit Grapples With Title IX, and the Equal Protection Clause, in the Wake of Bostock; Judge Martin and Chief Judge Pryor vigorously disagree over how to characterize a bathroom case from Florida.”

“Arrogant Nuttiness: Constitutional Law in a Justice Thomas World.” Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Reform the Court, but Don’t Pack It; The goal shouldn’t be to make the Court less ideological, but to make it less powerful”: Law professors Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Ruling dissolves block on Arkansas abortion laws; Judges send case back to LR judge”: Linda Satter has this front page article in today’s edition of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Caroline Kelly of CNN reports that “Judges cite John Roberts’ opinion in reversing block on Arkansas abortion laws.”

Marty Johnson of The Hill reports that “Judges cite Roberts opinion to allow Arkansas abortion restrictions to resume.”

And Daniel Conrad of Courthouse News Service reports that “Eighth Circuit OKs Arkansas Abortion Restrictions.”