“A New Five-Justice Block on the Supreme Court? In two decisions today, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh aligned with the Court’s liberals.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Schools Offer Empty Words to Asians; ‘We stand together,’ says Harvard’s president; Its admissions office stands accused of discrimination”: Wencong Fa will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Christian baker Jack Phillips back in court for rebuffing gender-transition cake”: Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times has this report.

“What will the SG do in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System? If the Biden Administration refuse to defend the constitutionality of the male-only selective service, Congress will not likely intervene.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Ford Can Be Sued in States Where Accidents Occurred, Supreme Court Rules; The justices unanimously rejected a plea to limit product liability suits in state courts”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Ford Must Face Liability Lawsuits, Supreme Court Rules; Unanimous decision hands setback to corporations seeking to limit state-court liability.”

Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press reports that “Ford loses Supreme Court decision, state claims can go forward.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices say accident victims can sue Ford in state courts.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court makes it easier to sue big companies and police; The rulings make it easier to sue for alleged vehicle defects in states other than where an auto is made and sold, and for police use of excessive force.”

Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law reports that “Justices Hand Ford a Loss in Case Over Accident Jurisdiction.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court permits state court lawsuits against Ford.”

And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Detroit Isn’t the Only Place to Sue Ford, High Court Rules.”

“Rasmussen, West Win 92nd Lile Moot Court Competition”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report. You can view the video recording of the final round of the competition on YouTube via this link.

Readers may recall a “How Appealing” post from early August 2020 titled “Avery Rasmussen ’21 To Clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

“There’s no time like the present to take a Second Amendment case; Thirteen years after Heller, it’s time for the Supreme Court to settle whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Critics of federal ban on firearms device win key decision”: Ed White of The Associated Press has this report.

Victor Morton of The Washington Times reports that “Bump stocks not ‘machine guns’ and not subject to ATF ban, federal appeals court rules.”

Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns, Sixth Circuit Rules; The appeals court held the classification of bump stocks as machine guns under federal law in the wake of the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas should not be enforced.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a post titled “Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Rejects Chevron Deference for Interpretation of Criminal Statute; A long awaited decision in a challenge to the Trump Administration’s ‘bump stock’ ban tees up some interesting questions for the High Court’s review.”

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

“Secret nanny cam recording can be used against woman accused of assaulting kids: Pa. Supreme Court.” Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions (here and here).

“Guns are on Supreme Court’s agenda days after mass shootings”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“California’s top court ends cash bail for some defendants who can’t afford it”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “State Supreme Court cuts back cash bail system, allowing release for many without posting bond.”

Michael McGough and Andrew Sheeler of The Sacramento Bee report that “California Supreme Court rules cash bail unconstitutional for defendants who can’t afford it.”

Nico Savidge of The San Jose Mercury News has an article headlined “‘Gigantic momentous decision’: California Supreme Court shrinks role of cash bail in jailings; Landmark ruling directs judges to expand use of non-jail alternatives and affordable bail, and increases burden to justify public-safety detainments.”

Don Thompson of The Associated Press has a report headlined “California high court: Judges must weigh ability to pay bail.”

Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service reports that “Bail Cannot Be Imposed Without Considering Ability to Pay, CA High Court Rules; In a landmark ruling on cash bail, the California Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot keep detainees behind bars just because they cannot afford to post bail.”

And at the “At the Lectern” blog, David Ettinger has a post titled “Affordable bail or other release conditions required instead of pretrial detention in most cases.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“In barbed dissents, Trump appointees call out 9th Circuit colleagues in immigration case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post about an order denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“How the Supreme Court Could Supercharge the GOP’s Voter Suppression Agenda; A new case could open up the door to unapologetic discrimination”: Jay Willis has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Testing Time at the Supreme Court: The outcome of a property rights case could foretell how much conservatives can expect from the justices.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

Seventh Circuit judge Frank H. Easterbrook sure knows how to start an opinion: Here are two recent examples.

From yesterday: “Does the Constitution of the United States tell us the limits of criticism in reviews of standing desks?”

And from Tuesday: “Dwight Jackson made a career of armed bank robbery. Thirty minutes after being released from prison for two of his robberies, Jackson committed another.”

In which the Seventh Circuit reasons that having had a meth lab in your kitchen militates against compassionate release to home confinement: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“1st Circuit won’t touch Uber driver’s bid for employee status”: Daniel Wiessner of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued Tuesday.

“(At Least) Nine Conceptions of Common Law in One Takings Case”: Michael C. Dorf has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Colorado baker who won Supreme Court battle calls gender transition cake case ‘a trap’; Owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips described his experience at trial this week”: Brooke Singman of Fox News has this report.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued two rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist., No. 19-368. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the ruling.

2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Barrett did not participate in the ruling.