“John Roberts’ Stealth Attack on Abortion Rights Just Paid Off; A federal appeals court will allow Arkansas to create degrading new hurdles for people seeking abortions”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Eighth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“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.

“NCAA asks Supreme Court for emergency action in athlete compensation case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Florida Supreme Court faces defining test of its hard-right philosophy”: The South Florida Sun Sentinel has published an editorial that begins, “The appointment of a woman who would be the Florida Supreme Court’s first Caribbean-born Black justice is at stake in a lawsuit challenging her eligibility.”

“Longtime North Dakota Supreme Court justice tests positive for COVID-19”: Jack Dura of The Bismarck Tribune has an article that begins, “North Dakota’s longest-serving Supreme Court justice has tested positive for COVID-19. Justice Gerald VandeWalle, 86, ‘has tested positive and he is currently receiving treatment,’ Chief Justice Jon Jensen confirmed to the Tribune on Thursday.”

“Judge Reeves’ Masterful Advocacy”: Scott H. Greenfield has this post at his “Simple Justice” blog.

“Federal Circuit rules U.S. courts overcharged on PACER, plaintiffs’ lawyer predicts big refunds”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Citing Wariness of ‘Political Controversies,’ Grievance Committee Won’t Act Over Schumer’s Remarks on Trump Justices; The top Senate Democrat faced a complaint for saying Trump-tapped Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would ‘pay the price’ if they ruled against abortion rights”: Jacqueline Thomsen of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Fifth Time’s a Charm? Government Wants Another Bundy Trial.” Karina Brown of Courthouse News Service had this report in late May about an oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Today, that Ninth Circuit panel issued this decision affirming the dismissal of the indictment due to the federal government’s Brady violations.

“Appeals court tells parties in Flynn case to be ready for questions on judicial impartiality; The rehearing, before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is set for Aug. 11”: Tyler Olson of Fox News has this report.

“Pence criticizes Chief Justice Roberts, says court’s future ‘on the ballot in 2020’; The vice president called the chief judge ‘a disappointment’ to conservatives, particularly in an abortion case”: Rebecca Shabad of NBC News has this report.

“Block on Trump administration ‘public charge’ rule lifted by court”: Ann E. Marimow has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

Jacqueline Thomsen of The National Law Journal has an article headlined “Splitting With Other Circuits, Appeals Court Rules for Trump in ‘Public Charge’ Case; Both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh and the Second Circuit have recently issued rulings against the Trump administration’s public charge rule.”

And Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News Service reports that “Panel Vacates Injunction Against Public Charge Immigration Rule.”

You can access yesterday’s 113-page ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“GrubHub Ruling Draws New Line in Battles Over Driver Arbitration”: Erin Mulvaney of Bloomberg Law has this report.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Seventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“News Media Writers: Please Stop Saying ‘Half’ of Oklahoma is ‘Indian Lands’ or ‘Indian Territory’ — It’s Not (Yet).” Matthew L.M. Fletcher has this post at his “Turtle Talk” blog.

“Federal Circuit Affirms Limits on How Government Uses PACER Fees”: Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Jacqueline Thomsen and Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal report that “Appeals Court Rules Federal Judiciary Misused PACER Fees in Class Action Suit; The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Senior U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle’s decision, finding that the judge ‘got it just right.’”

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

“Judge, Shielding Cop Via ‘Qualified Immunity,’ Asks Whether It Belongs In ‘Dustbin'”: Carrie Johnson of NPR has this report.

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “A Federal Judge Challenges the Supreme Court to Say Black Lives Matter; The opinion invokes George Floyd, Elijah McClain, Eric Garner, and other Black men killed by police.”

“The Court’s Incoherence on Executive Removal”: David Alvis and Flagg Taylor have this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Democrats’ Judicial Screening Panels Draw Progressive Ire”: Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law has an article that begins, “Top Democratic senators are facing criticism from the left for using screening commissions to vet judicial picks, in what could be the latest casualty of the partisan judicial confirmation wars.”

“The Making of a Molotov Cocktail: Two lawyers, a summer of unrest, and a bottle of Bud Light.” Lisa Miller has this article in the August 3, 2020 issue of New York magazine.

“‘See you in court’: ACLU files nearly 400 cases versus Trump.” David Crary of The Associated Press has this report.

“Judge: Doctrine shielding police from lawsuits is wrong.” Emily Wagster Pettus of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin S. Kerr has a post titled “Did Judge Reeves Reach the Correct Result in Jamison v. McClendon? A blistering criticism, but I’m not sure this was the right case for it.”

“Why a Court Overturned the Death Sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon Bomber”: Masha Gessen has this post online at The New Yorker.

“The Supreme Court invented qualified immunity. Now, a judge’s blistering opinion shows why it must go.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

Therein, Marcus writes, “Reeves, a Barack Obama nominee who sits in Jackson, Miss., and is the second Black federal judge in the history of the state, produced one of the most powerful pieces of legal writing I have encountered.” You can access the opinion at this link.

“Running on Roberts: The conservative legal movement must convince voters the Supreme Court is on the brink of liberal control.” Dahlia Lithwick and law professor Steve Vladeck have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Legal scholars dispute Trump’s claim to power ‘nobody thought the president had'”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article that begins, “President Trump has routinely asserted his outsize view of presidential power, but his claim to unprecedented clout in recent weeks springs from an unlikely source: one of his defeats at the Supreme Court.”