“‘Zip tie guy’ and mom to be released under new order in Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot court case”: Mariah Timms of The Tennessean has this report.

And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Prosecutors Dropped A High-Profile Fight To Keep Two Alleged Capitol Rioters In Jail; A judge ordered Eric Munchel and Lisa Eisenhart released to home detention.”

“NCAA Faces Showdown Over Player Compensation — and Future of College Sports; Supreme Court hears pivotal case this week as state laws target rule-making of longtime governing body”: Rachel Bachman and Laine Higgins will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“U.S. Abandons Four-Year Antitrust Battle Against Qualcomm”: David McLaughlin of Bloomberg News has this report.

Sixth Circuit panel denies stay of federal district court’s decision against CDC’s eviction moratorium, concluding that “the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits”: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

The federal district court’s decision that the Sixth Circuit has refused to stay can be accessed here.

“Spaceships and Serial Killers”: Law professor Melissa Murray and her guest Ginger Anders appear on this week’s installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast.

“Highlighting the Most Important NCAA Amateurism Cases through Network Stickiness Measures”: Sam Ehrlich has this post at The Juris Lab.

“Justices’ Ford Jurisdiction Opinion ‘A Step Back From The Brink'”: Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law has this report.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one case.

And in Mays v. Hines, No. 20–507, the Court issued a per curiam summary reversal of the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented without opinion.

“The pandemic has not slowed down Howard Bashman of How Appealing”: Thanks to the ABA Journal’s “Asked & Answered” podcast for inviting me to be a guest on this week’s episode, hosted by Stephanie Francis Ward.

This is my second ever podcasting appearance. My first, which you can access here, was as a guest on the “Texas Appellate Law Podcast.”

“Woulda, Coulda SCOTUS: The modern history of the Supreme Court’s trampling of equality, and the decisions that might have changed all that.” You can access via this link the new installment of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast with Dahlia Lithwick, featuring Adam Cohen as her guest.

“Dianne Feinstein becomes California’s longest-serving U.S. senator”: Jennifer Haberkorn of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Cameras in the Supreme Court would be good”: Gabe Roth has this letter to the editor online at The Washington Post.

“4th Circuit rules for France in ‘France.com’ trademark dispute”: Blake Brittain of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued Thursday.

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Philadelphia Safehouse case: You can access the order, and the opinion dissenting therefrom, at this link.

My earlier coverage of the original divided three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here and here.

“Landlord Avoids FHA Suit Over Tenant-on-Tenant Racial Harassment”: Bernie Pazanowski has this report (subscription required for full access) on an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Thursday.

As is typical for the Second Circuit, the judges remain divided over whether the proceeding was en banc or in banc.

“It might be time for Stephen Breyer to retire from the Supreme Court; A slim Democratic margin in the Senate offers the president his best chance for a Black woman justice; First, he needs a vacancy on the high court”: Columnist Renée Graham has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“Death is the right penalty for Tsarnaev; A judge went to great lengths to ensure a fair trial for the Boston Marathon bomber”: Columnist Jeff Jacoby has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“Supreme Court to decide whether Goldman Sachs shareholders can bring suit in major fraud case”: Tucker Higgins of CNBC has this report.

“Judicial Notice: March 27, 2021; Notable legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Ford Plays Legal Hardball With Accident Victims”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his “Jost on Justice” blog.

“As madness moves through March, SCOTUS considers NCAA case over athlete compensation”: Mark Walsh of ABA Journal has this report.

“They Were Guantánamo’s First Detainees. Here’s Where They Are Now. The Pentagon called the first 20 prisoners sent to Guantánamo in 2002 ‘the worst of the worst.’ Just two remain there. Others are spread around the world — including four senior Taliban figures.” Carol Rosenberg will have this article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Pa. court blocks abortion providers’ challenge to state’s curbs on public funding for abortions”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

And Marc Levy of The Associated Press reports that “Pennsylvania court again backs limits on abortion coverage.”

You can access yesterday’s en banc ruling of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Ruling denying adoption by same-sex Nebraska couple reversed”: Margery A. Beck of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Nebraska issued yesterday.

“A law has empowered farmworkers for 46 years. The Supreme Court must let it be.” Jerry Brown and Miles Reiter have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“For the first time in its more than 100-year-old history, the [Ames Moot Court Competition] was conducted virtually, due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.” Harvard Law School has posted on YouTube at this link the video of the competition’s final round, which occurred earlier this month. Justice Stephen G. Breyer presided over the virtual oral argument.

Harvard Law Today has a report headlined “Taking Ames: The 2020 Ames Moot Court Competition showcased some of HLS’ top advocates.”

“Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum: Reform of the Supreme Court?” Harvard Law School has posted this video on YouTube.

Rachel Reed of Harvard Law Today reports that “Is the Supreme Court broken? At the Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum, panelists agreed on the need to reform the nation’s highest court — but diverged on what that would mean.”

And Brett Milano of The Harvard Gazette has a report headlined “Reordering the court: With more Americans saying Supreme Court should be reformed, panelists suggest how to do so.”

“Could the next Supreme Court justice be a Black woman from Minnesota? Candidate Joe Biden promised that, if elected, his first nomination for a vacancy on that court would be a Black woman jurist, the first of her kind on that bench.” Marshall H. Tanick has this essay online at MinnPost.

“The Supreme Court’s coming war with Joe Biden, explained; The Supreme Court is poised to give itself a veto power over much of the Biden administration’s authority”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“How the Supreme Court laid the path for Georgia’s new election law”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Ban Garamond? C’mon People, It’s Not Exactly Comic Sans. The D.C. Circuit Court would prefer to deliver justice in Times New Roman, thank you very much.” Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Bloomberg Opinion’s extensive promotion of the essay on Twitter has caused “Garamond” to be trending at the moment.

“Appellants and Appellees are ordered to file supplemental briefing addressing the original public meaning of the Second Amendment.” So begins a detailed order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday in an appeal from a federal district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against a California law that bans the sale of firearms to adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21.

The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument of the appeal for May 12, 2021, but the identities of the judges on the three-judge panel assigned to hear and decide the appeal have not yet been made public.

Firearms Policy Coalition has made available for download via this link many of the relevant documents filed in the appeal and in the district court, including the opening brief for plaintiffs-appellants, the brief for defendants-appellees, and the reply brief for plaintiffs-appellants.

“Federal Appeals Court Suspends Larry Klayman from Practicing Law in D.C.” Jerry Lambe has this post at Law & Crime about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.

In earlier related coverage, Josh Gerstein of Politico had a report in September 2020 headlined “A conservative legal gadfly faces the music: Larry Klayman pioneered the slash-and-burn legal tactics that have become an endemic feature of American politics; Now, he faces the prospect of his own professional demise.”

“Court ordered to review detention of ‘zip tie guy’ suspect, mom in Capitol riot case”: Mariah Timms of The Tennessean has this report.

David Yaffe-Bellany of Bloomberg News reports that “Capitol Riot Ruling Separates Assaults, Plots From Cheering.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Capitol riot defendants notch win at appeals court; In bail ruling, D.C. Circuit panel says non-violent participants in Jan. 6 breach may not pose ongoing danger.”

Zoe Tillman, Ken Bensinger, and Jessica Garrison of BuzzFeed News report that “A Court Made It Harder For Prosecutors To Keep Capitol Riot Defendants Behind Bars; The DC Circuit ruling was applied almost immediately to two defendants in the Oath Keepers conspiracy case who were granted bond.”

Celine Castronuovo of The Hill reports that “Federal court hands win to Capitol riot defendants, rules they may be eligible for release.”

And Erika Williams of Courthouse News Service reports that “Appeals Court Rules for Capitol Riot Suspects in Pretrial Detention Fight; The D.C. Circuit ordered a lower court to reconsider letting two people charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol walk free until their trials.”

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

“US court sides with photographer in fight over Warhol art”: Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press has this report.

Ian Mohr of The New York Post’s Page Six reports that “Court reverses Warhol Foundation legal win over ’80s Prince pics.”

Josh Russell of Courthouse News Service reports that “2nd Circuit Flays Fair-Use Defense to Warhol Prince Prints; The reversal breathes new life into copyright claims over Andy Warhol screen prints of Prince that shook up one photographer’s 1981 portrait of the beloved singer.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Andy Warhol Foundation Suffers Big Copyright Defeat at Appeals Court; The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Andy Warhol didn’t make fair use of a photographer’s image of Prince.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consists of a unanimous opinion and two concurring opinions.