“High court tilts into an unwanted absolutism with N.Y. pandemic ruling”: The Buffalo News has published this editorial.

“U.S. Supreme Court moves up deadline in congressman’s bid to upend Pa. election results”: Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Barr Is Said to Be Weighing Whether to Leave Before Trump’s Term Ends; The attorney general’s future came into doubt after he acknowledged that the Justice Department had not found evidence of widespread voter fraud in the president’s election loss”: Katie Benner, Michael S. Schmidt, and Peter Baker of The New York Times have this report.

“For churchgoers during the Covid-19 pandemic, a deadly lesson from the 1918 flu”: Kristen Rogers of CNN has this report.

And at his “Jost on Justice” blog, Kenneth Jost has a post titled “Religious Liberty Ruling Risks Public Health.”

Commemorating 20 years as an appellate columnist for The Legal Intelligencer: This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, will appear in the Tuesday, December 8, 2020 print edition — which means that I should start (and finish) writing it sometime soon.

The very first installment of that monthly column appeared on December 11, 2000 and carried the title “The Unconstitutionality of Non-Precedential Appellate Rulings.” In this month’s installment of the column — which I’m pleased to say I plan to keep writing into the future — I will reminisce about the first 20 years of its existence.

One quick story about the column for now that readers of this blog might find of interest. When I proposed writing the column, The Legal’s editor asked me to come up with potential topics for the next six installments or so to demonstrate that its subject matter would support recurring attention on a monthly basis. And the editor also asked me to propose potential names for the column.

I remember that I proposed at least two possible names — “Upon Further Review” (which is the name the editor selected) and “How Appealing.” The “How Appealing” name contains something of a pun, in that my mother would from time to time refer to me as “How” instead of by my full first name, Howard. If you are among those readers of this blog who hadn’t yet recognized the existence of that pun — sort of like the arrow in the FedEx logo that you can never unsee once you discover it — now you know.

“Pennsylvania Vetoes Help for Business; The legislation offered liability protections for good-faith actors”: This editorial appeared in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Brandon Bernard Is Scheduled To Be Executed. 5 Jurors Who Sentenced Him Don’t Think He Should Die. Bernard, sentenced to death for acting as an accomplice to a crime when he was 18, is scheduled to be killed weeks before President Trump leaves office.” Jessica Schulberg of HuffPost has this report.

“MLB and all 30 teams sue insurance providers, citing billions in losses due to Covid-19”: Artemis Moshtaghian of CNN has this report.

“After Supreme Court ruling, New Yorkers go back to synagogue”: Haley Cohen of The Jerusalem Post has this report.

“Nazi art dispute goes to US supreme court in landmark case; Heirs of Jewish art dealers bring case over Guelph Treasure that defence lawyers say could open floodgates”: Philip Oltermann of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“The new death penalty: COVID has now killed in nine months more US prisoners than capital punishment over last 50+ years.” Douglas A. Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog.

“Justice Alito Has Moved Up the Response Time to the Rep. Kelly PA Election Petition to the Morning of Safe Harbor Day: What Does It Mean?” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“As Supreme Court reconsiders Jim Crow-era split juries, past cases could earn new trials”: Erik Ortiz of NBC News has this report.

“9th Circ. Won’t Revive Popcorn Trans Fats Suit”: Law360 has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Friday. The appeal was decided one day before the two-year anniversary of its oral argument.

“High court to decide whether Nazi art case stays in US court”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has this report.

“William Barr’s Break with Donald Trump”: David Rohde has this post online at The New Yorker.