“11th Circuit Upholds Termination of Protections for Miami Homeless”: Izzy Kapnick of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“Hawley meets with Barrett, won’t ask whether she’d overturn Roe v. Wade”: Bryan Lowry of The Kansas City Star has an article that begins, “Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley said Thursday his demand that Supreme Court nominees acknowledge Roe v. Wade was ‘wrongly decided’ doesn’t require them to say how they would rule in a future case.”

“Barrett’s participation in 2006 ad calling for overturn of Roe v. Wade was not included in Senate disclosures; Democrats say she should have revealed the inclusion of her name on a list of signatures supporting the ad sponsor’s mission”: Heidi Przybyla of NBC News has this report.

“The Right’s Relentless Supreme Court Justice Picking Machine; Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is the fruit of decades of activity by a tightly organized network”: Columnist Thomas B. Edsall has this essay online at The New York Times.

“U.S. appeals court upholds California’s coronavirus restrictions on churches”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report on an order that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Trump Supreme Court pick already ruled on pending Obamacare case — in a moot exercise”: Jennifer Haberkorn of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

According to the article, “Just one week before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom she has been nominated to replace, Barrett participated in a mock court hearing on the pending case. She was part of an eight-judge panel that heard the mock arguments, conducted at William & Mary Law School.”

The article also reports that, “contrary to what many Democrats fear, her position on the moot court that considered the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, went mostly against the Trump administration’s stance.”

“Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Signed Anti-Abortion Ad; Her statement appears to be the most direct evidence of her personal views, ones she has vowed to set aside on the bench”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post reports that “Barrett signed ad in 2006 decrying ‘barbaric legacy’ of Roe v. Wade, advocating overturning the law.”

Siobhan Hughes and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Signed Antiabortion Ad in 2006; Two-page ad in an Indiana newspaper brings fresh attention to a key issue in her confirmation battle.”

And Josh Salman and Kevin McCoy of USA Today report that “Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett signed anti-abortion letter accompanying ad calling to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

“Barrett Braces for What She Has Called a ‘Very Brutal’ Confirmation Process; ‘I think the confirmation process has gotten very brutal, obviously. Even at the court of appeals level, it has really escalated,’ Judge Amy Coney Barrett, now a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, said in remarks last year.” Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

“SCOTUS is back in session amid a loss, a heated election and a world health crisis”: Mark Walsh has this report online at ABA Journal.

Also online at ABA Journal, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an essay titled “The Supreme Court returns to a term like no other.”

“The Supreme Court bind Democrats face is their own fault”: Columnist Marc A. Thiessen has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Barrett opposed ‘abortion on demand,’ raising doubts on Roe”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Ariane de Vogue and Austen Bundy of CNN report that “Barrett signed a ‘right to life’ letter in ad that also called to end Roe v. Wade.”

“Destroying Monuments — and Constitutions; There is a broad similarity between the way constitutional provisions and monuments are wrongly discarded”: John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“7 big cases the Supreme Court will hear in its new term, explained; A Supreme Court without Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about to show us whether it still cares for the rule of law”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Why Don’t Republicans Sound Excited That Their SCOTUS Picks Might Fulfill GOP Promises?” Tierney Sneed of TPM has this report.

And at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whelan has a post titled “Michael McConnell’s Very Weak Argument on Judge Barrett and Roe.”

“Revealed: Amy Coney Barrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization; Barrett signed newspaper ad in 2006 sponsored by St Joseph County Right to Life, an extreme anti-choice group.” Stephanie Kirchgaessner of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

And Sam Stein of The Daily Beast has a report headlined “Amy Coney Barrett Signed Letter Urging End of ‘Barbaric’ Roe v. Wade; The letter may be in line with conservative thinking; But it could complicate her Supreme Court fight.”

The newspaper ad can be viewed at this link.

“Appeals court allows Pennsylvania to restrict crowd size”: Michael Rubinkam of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily restored Pennsylvania’s pandemic restrictions on indoor and outdoor gatherings, putting on hold a judge’s ruling that threw out statewide limits on crowd size.”

“Speedy confirmation schedule for Amy Barrett injects urgency into FBI background probe, analysts say”: Kevin Johnson of USA Today has this report.

Jordain Carney of The Hill reports that “Democrats step up hardball tactics in Supreme Court fight.”

Barbara Sprunt of NPR reports that “How Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Would Compare To Past Supreme Court Picks.”

And in commentary, online at The New York Daily News, David Segal and law professor Zephyr Teachout have an essay titled “To keep Barrett off the Supreme Court, Schumer must fight like a defense attorney with a client on death row.”

“U.S. appeals court blocks Trump from shutting down the census count early”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Federal appeals court rejects Trump administration attempt to end 2020 census early.”

Tara Bahrampour of The Washington Post reports that “Appeals judges uphold lower court’s order to continue census count.”

And Lucas Manfredi of Fox News reports that “Trump administration denied request to block 2020 census extension; Ruling comes amid ongoing effort by the Trump Administration to end the census count on Sept. 30.”

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

“AT&T Must Face Lawsuit Over DirecTV Robocalls”: Wendy Davis of Digital News Daily has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“When Judges Disagree — Dissents From Judge Barrett’s Positions”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“No straight-ticket voting in Texas in 2020, appeals court rules”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

And Emma Platoff of The Texas Tribune reports that “No straight-ticket voting for Texas’ 2020 election, federal appeals court says.”

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

“Supreme Court looms as 4th Circuit warns of ‘mass voter confusion’ in SC order”: John Monk of The State of Columbia, South Carolina has this report about an order accompanied by separate opinions that the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“U.S. court voids $448 million award against AbbVie, but revives FTC claim over AndroGel”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

Valerie Bauman of Bloomberg Law reports that “Third Circuit Limits FTC Ability to Recoup Profits From AbbVie.”

And Emilee Larkin of Courthouse News Service reports that “Third Circuit Tosses $448 Million Penalty in Pay-for-Delay Case.”

You can access yesterday’s 99-page ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

“Akebia Loses Appeal Over Medicare Reimbursement for Kidney Drug”: Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday.