En banc Ninth Circuit finds there’s no time like the present to fight over Justice Scalia: On Tuesday, an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision consisting of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, three different opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part, and an opinion dissenting in part.

In all, the 64 pages of opinions mention Justice Scalia a total of 40 times.

“Ninth Circuit Orders New Trial in Criminal Dumping Case”: Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Mitch McConnell Working With Kentucky Legislature on Senate Exit Strategy; Legislation informally referred to as the Daniel Cameron Election Bill is moving through the Kentucky General Assembly”: Nick Storm has this report online at The Intercept.

“New appointment to the UK Supreme Court and JCPC: The Queen has approved the appointment of Lady Justice Rose to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as a Justice.” Prime Minister’s Office of the United Kingdom issued this news release today.

And the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom today issued a news release titled “Lady Justice Rose will join the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as a Justice on 13 April, it was announced today.”

“America’s Legalistic Culture Is About to Become a Problem; The vaccine rollout will create new clashes between conflicting rights”: Law professor Jamal Greene has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“White House primes ‘pipeline’ of federal judges”: Hans Nichols of Axios has this report.

“One year without Supreme Court in-person oral arguments; The last in-person oral argument was on March 4, 2020, in June Medical Services v. Gee”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Coincidentally, my last in-person oral argument — it did not occur at the U.S. Supreme Court — was one year ago yesterday.

“The Supreme Court Is Giving Lower Courts a Subtle Hint to Rein In Police Misconduct; And those paying attention haven’t missed it”: Law professor Joanna Schwartz has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“How the Supreme Court can help sexual assault survivors in the military”: Miriam Becker-Cohen has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Court narrows law used to target white supremacists; The 9th Circuit reinstates charges against four men accused of attacks at California rallies”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report on a per curiam decision that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, Martin Macias Jr of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Rioting Charges Against White Nationalists; The members of a California white nationalist group face federal charges of organizing and participating in riots across the state.”

And Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court strikes parts of anti-rioting law used to charge white nationalists.”

“Supreme Court Makes It Harder For Undocumented Immigrants To Fight Deportation”: Nina Totenberg of NPR has this report.

Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Longtime Immigrants Fall Short in Surprise High Court Ruling.”

And Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Finds Burden of Proof to Stop Deportation Falls on Immigrant; The justices found that an undocumented immigrant seeking to cancel their deportation must prove they have not been convicted of a disqualifying crime when the record is unclear.”

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued today’s opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pereida v. Wilkinson, No. 19-438. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the decision.

“Justice Amy Coney Barrett Issues Her First Majority Opinion; The 7-to-2 ruling rejected an environmental group’s Freedom of Information Act request”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with government over environmentalists in Barrett’s first signed majority opinion.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in First Opinion, Limits Access to Government Documents; Supreme Court decision gives government agencies more leeway to withhold certain material from Freedom of Information Act requests.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivers first opinion in case involving records disclosure.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justice Barrett’s debut opinion blocks environmentalists’ access to EPA documents.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivers 1st opinion.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Barrett authors first U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a loss for environmentalists.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Barrett Rejects Sierra Club in First Opinion for Supreme Court.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first majority written opinion limits reach of FOIA.”

Pamela King of E&E News reports that “Barrett’s first ruling hands feds a win in EPA records feud.”

And Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Backs Secrecy Over Draft Records About Harm to Endangered Species.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote today’s opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., No. 19-547. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined.

“Justices Lean Toward ‘Do-Over’ in Appointments Clause Dispute”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Carr v. Saul, No. 19-1442.

“Democrats’ Ambitions on Voting Rights, Policing Run Headlong Into Senate Filibuster; As more Democratic senators signal openness to changing the 60-vote rule for most bills, centrists resist; ‘Never!’ says Manchin”: Kristina Peterson of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“This appeal involves a blog operator that sued a content aggregator for copyright infringement after the aggregator copied and published the blog’s content.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

At his “Technology & Marketing Law Blog,” Eric Goldman had a post titled “A Blog’s RSS Feed May Not Grant an Implied Copyright License — MidlevelU v. Newstex” about the federal district court’s ruling, which the Eleventh Circuit’s decision yesterday affirmed.

And in May 2020, Mitch Stoltz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation had a post titled “EFF to Appeals Court: Reverse Legal Gotchas on Ordinary Internet Activities.”

“House anti-corruption and Supreme Court ethics vote helps restore U.S. credibility; The bill would require a code of conduct for justices, who are the only U.S. judges not governed by such a code”: Senior U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf (D. Mass.) has this essay online at NBC News.

“When Justice Stephen Breyer rules (on retirement), the White House might know first”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Court Shrugs Off Appeal of Withdrawn Kentucky Ban on Gatherings”: Rob Tricchinelli 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.

“Sixth Circuit Orders Attorney Who Sued Judges to Show Cause or Face Sanctions; An all-too-rare sanctions order from a federal court”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued Tuesday.

Fifth Circuit vacates entry of summary judgment that a magistrate judge entered in favor of the party which objected to having the magistrate judge conduct the civil action due to the magistrate judge’s inability to enter dispositive orders: You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Consumer Product Agency Must Fix Phthalates Rule, 5th Cir. Says”: Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access).

And the Natural Resources Defense Council has issued a news release titled “Court Retains Ban on Toxic Phthalate Chemicals in Children’s Products and Toys; The much-needed protections against the harmful chemicals will stay in place for now, keeping children safe.”

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

“Federal Appeals Court Upholds School’s Removal of 4th Grader’s Essay on LGBTQ Rights”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report.

And Mey Rude of The Advocate has a report headlined “Court: Principal Was Right to Ban Fourth-Grader’s Pro-Trans Essay.”

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

Update: In other coverage, Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fourth Circuit Sides With School in Dispute Over Transgender-Affirming Essay; Citing 30-year-old court precedent, the unanimous decision affirms the idea that schools have wide authority over what’s published in assignments.”

Programming note: Beginning at 10 a.m. eastern time today, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more decisions in argued cases. Today’s opinion(s) will be available via this link just as soon as the Court posts them online.

“2nd Circuit En Banc Rules Manslaughter as ‘Categorically’ Violent, Including Cases of Omission; Dueling opinions from the judges, meanwhile, highlighted rifts on a court that is known, historically and philosophically, for its deep reluctance to grant rehearings on panel decisions”: Tom McParland of New York Law Journal has this report.

And at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Douglas A. Berman has a post titled “En banc Second Circuit needs 120 pages and five opinions to sort out whether NY first-degree manslaughter qualifies as a federal ‘violent crime.’”

You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.