“U.S. Court of Appeals ruling upholds Kentucky abortion law that lower court struck down”: Karla Ward of The Lexington Herald Leader has this report.

And Deborah Yetter of The Courier Journal of Louisville, Kentucky reports that “Appeals court upholds Kentucky law on abortion clinic rules for hospitals, ambulances.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“Why Didn’t The Nuclear Option End Confirmation Hearing Stonewalling?” Michael C. Dorf has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Sixth Circuit Revives Kentucky Abortion Clinic Transfer Rule”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service has a report that begins, “A divided panel of appellate judges on Friday reinstated restrictions that require abortion providers in Kentucky to obtain written transfer agreements with hospitals, a decision opponents say could leave the state without a licensed provider.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“G.O.P.-Appointed Judges Threaten Democracy, Liberals Seeking Court Expansion Say; A new study found a partisan pattern in rulings that could make it easier or harder to vote, fueling a debate among Democrats over court packing”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

“Because no opinion in June Medical Services garnered a majority, we, as a lower court, have the ‘vexing task’ of deciding which opinion controls.” So writes Sixth Circuit Judge Joan L. Larsen in an opinion issued today in Kentucky’s appeal from a district court’s permanent injunction against one of that state’s laws regulating abortion.

Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay issued a lengthy and spirited dissent that begins, “Today, the majority openly disregards our standard of review and discards binding precedent. In doing so, it condones the evisceration of the constitutional right to abortion access in Kentucky.”

“Baker’s legacy is on the line with SJC picks; Baker must seize the opportunity to make the state’s highest court truly reflect the diverse state it serves”: Columnist Rachelle G. Cohen has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“Amy Coney Barrett’s cardboard-cutout proceedings: She said almost nothing, at considerable length.” Columnist Scot Lehigh has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

Also online at that newspaper, columnist Joan Vennochi has an essay titled “Will ‘the law of Amy’ — or ‘the law of the American people’ — guide Barrett? The track record of the Supreme Court nominee suggests she is ideologically positioned to do exactly what Trump is nominating her to do.”

“Judge Barrett is an originalist. Should we be afraid?” Law professor Lawrence B. Solum has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Amy Coney Barrett Opens Up; Her testimony was the most candid and detailed at a confirmation hearing since Robert Bork in 1987”: Law professor Jonathan Turley will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Harry Reid’s Filibuster Legacy; Democrats are paying a dear price for their procedural radicalism”: This editorial will appear in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Barrett’s hearings were a frustrating charade. But they were still chilling.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“There’s nothing more originalist than packing the court”: Columnist Joe Scarborough has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“A High-Stakes Plan to Save the Court: The liberal justices should bring on the inevitable conservative revolution.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Federal Judge Accused Other Judges Across The Country Of A ‘Systematic Effort’ To Suppress Votes; ‘Hiding behind closed courthouse doors does not change the fact that ruling by ruling, many courts are chipping away at votes that ought to be counted,’ Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report on a dissenting opinion that Sixth Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore issued today.

“Full federal appeals court in D.C. to weigh House subpoena to ex-White House counsel Donald McGahn”: Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post has this report on an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“By Calling Climate Change ‘Controversial,’ Barrett Created Controversy; Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer numerous questions, but it was her avoidance of acknowledging climate change that particularly resonated”: John Schwartz and Hiroko Tabuchi of The New York Times have this report.

“Senate Republicans wave away SCOTUS threat to Obamacare; The GOP spent 10 years trying to repeal it; But amid the fight over Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, they now say it’s not threatened”: Marianne LeVine and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico have this report.

“Hearings Behind Them, Republicans Close In on Barrett Confirmation; The Senate Judiciary Committee lined up a vote for Oct. 22 on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, as Democrats warned Republicans would rue the day”: Nicholas Fandos of The New York Times has this report.

Seung Min Kim and Karoun Demirjian of The Washington Post report that “Republicans set Barrett on swift course to confirmation to the Supreme Court.”

And Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine have an article headlined “‘Your credibility . . . will die in this room’; Senate Democrats vow the GOP will regret confirming Barrett to the Supreme Court on the eve of the election.”

“18 Hours of Questions, Few Answers: What We Learned About Amy Coney Barrett; The Supreme Court nominee would not say whether the president could pardon himself or delay the election, but she displayed a sure command of the law.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Republican Judges Are Quietly Upending Public Health Laws; A catastrophic sequence of decisions has blocked states from responding to the pandemic”: Law professor John Fabian Witt has this essay online at The New York Times.

“In Gratuitously Attacking Marriage Equality, Clarence Thomas Accidentally Raised an Important Question About the Scope of Religious Liberty”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Judge Barrett Herself Explained Why ‘The Law As Written’ Often Merges With Her ‘Preferences'”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Abbott taps Rebeca Huddle to fill Texas Supreme Court vacancy”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

Taylor Goldenstein of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Gov. Abbott appoints Rebeca Huddle to Texas Supreme Court.”

And Emma Platoff of The Texas Tribune reports that “Gov. Greg Abbott picks Rebeca Huddle for Texas Supreme Court vacancy; Abbott, a former Texas Supreme Court justice himself, picked Huddle to serve on the all-Republican high court.”

“Feinstein praises, hugs Graham at end of Barrett hearings; ‘This has been one of the best set of hearings I have participated in'”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Graham, Feinstein hug it out at conclusion of Barrett hearing; Feinstein said it was among the best hearings she has been a part of.”

Igor Bobic of HuffPost reports that “Dianne Feinstein Heaps Praise On Lindsey Graham After Amy Coney Barrett Hearing; The two senators even shared a hug afterward; Now a progressive group is calling for her removal from the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Jordain Carney of The Hill has a report headlined “Progressive group: Feinstein must step down as top Democrat on Judiciary panel.”

Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law reports that “Liberals Wanted Barrett War, Got a Hug as Hearings End.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Jeremy Stahl has a jurisprudence essay titled “Oh Good, Dianne Feinstein Concluded the Barrett Hearings by Giving a Maskless Lindsey Graham a Hug.”

“Witnesses set to clash over Barrett’s confirmation during final Judiciary Committee hearing”: Paul LeBlanc of CNN has this report.

“Notre Dame calendars show more events not listed on Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate paperwork”: Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck of CNN have this report.

“Barrett emerges as the anti-Kavanaugh; Both parties had their reasons for pursuing a less drama-fueled Supreme Court confirmation hearing”: Burgess Everett and John Bresnahan of Politico have this report.

“To Democrats’ frustration, GOP predicts clear sailing as Barrett testimony ends”: Robert Barnes, Seung Min Kim, and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

“Bernard Cohen, lawyer who won victory for interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, dies at 86”: Emily Langer of The Washington Post has written this obituary.

“Amy Coney Barrett Won’t Say Trump’s Obvious Lawlessness Is Lawless; Her refusal to answer basic questions is not judicial independence; It’s aiding and abetting the president’s election fraud”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Amy Coney Barrett Closes Out Testimony, on Track for Senate Approval; Republicans line up behind Supreme Court nominee while Democrats suggest she is a threat to widely accepted rights”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Delayed election, mail-in ballots and transfer of power: Barrett steers clear of Trump’s strike zone; The Supreme Court nominee was careful not to contradict legally dubious assertions by Trump or address political controversies that he stokes on Twitter.” Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.

“‘Severability’ Could Save Health Law, Graham Says and Barrett Seems to Agree; Warnings from Democrats that Republicans and their Supreme Court nominee threaten the Affordable Care Act elicited reassuring words from both Senator Lindsey Graham and Judge Amy Coney Barrett”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Barrett, Vowing Independence, Is Haunted by Trump’s Demands; Judge Amy Coney Barrett is not the first Supreme Court nominee to profess her independence, but her task has been made far more complicated by the president who nominated her”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Be Afraid of Coney Barrett’s Views on Supreme Court Precedents; The Supreme Court nominee was particularly elusive about a landmark contraceptive case”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at Washington Monthly.