“Immigration lawyer’s recycled asylum narratives were ID theft — 2nd Circuit”: Daniel Wiessner of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.

“The State of State Court Amicus Filings”: Adam Feldman has this post at The Juris Lab.

“Roberts Harangues Marine Monument as Appeal Runs Aground; The chief justice said this particular monument challenge did not meet the Supreme Court’s bar but that several issues with the Antiquities Act make it ripe for future review”: Samantha Hawkins of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“In My Own Defense: van der Veen’s Response to Schwartz Article; Ted Schwartz’s commentary of me and my representation of former President Donald J. Trump in his impeachment trial is abject libel and born of ignorance and bias.” Michael van der Veen has this essay in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

Therein, van der Veen responds to an earlier Legal Intelligencer essay by Theodore A. Schwartz titled “Phila. Trial Lawyer Weighs In on van der Veen’s Defense of Trump.”

“Supreme Court Wary of Law Letting Union Organizers Onto Private Property; The justices considered a California regulation that allowed labor representatives to meet with farm workers at their worksites for up to three hours a day for as many as 120 days a year”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court seems to think law allowing union organizers on private property goes too far.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court appears skeptical of California rule letting union organizers on private farms.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Shows Inclination to Limit Union-Access Law; Arguments reveal differences on whether California growers have right to compensation for letting organizers onto their property to speak to farmworkers.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court conservatives turn skeptical eye on rule helping unions organize farmer workers.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court asked to squash law allowing union organizers onto private farm property.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem ready to rule against unions in farm case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court leans toward reining in unions in property rights case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Questions Union Access to Agricultural Company Land.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court hears clash between California farm owners, labor unions.”

Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Unlikely to Block Union Intrusions on Farms; Property owners say that labor drives have disrupted busy harvest operations, and that there are more suitable locations to organize somewhere where workers won’t be distracted.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “SCOTUS Heard Arguments In Clash Between Large Agriculture Growers And Their Workers.”

And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court confronts a union-busting argument that’s too radical even for Kavanaugh; Conservative lawyers shot for the moon in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid; They probably asked for too much.”

“The ‘shadow docket’: How the U.S. Supreme Court quietly dispatches key rulings.” Lawrence Hurley, Andrew Chung, and Jonathan Allen of Reuters have this report.

And Reuters has also posted online this video on the subject, on which Lawrence Hurley’s British accent can he enjoyed beginning around the 30-second mark.

“Trump’s Former Lawyer Now Argues ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her Voter Fraud Lies Were ‘Fact’; Powell is facing billion-dollar lawsuits after accusing voting technology companies of rigging the election”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Supreme Court to Consider Death Sentence in Boston Marathon Bombing Case; The justices will review a decision from a federal appeals court that overturned the death sentence imposed on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the attack”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court will consider restoring the Boston Marathon bomber’s death sentence.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Consider Boston Marathon Bomber’s Death Sentence; Justice Department sought high court review after appeals court tossed death sentence for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear death penalty case against Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear Boston Marathon bomber’s case, weigh death sentence.”

“Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias”: Colleen Slevin of The Associated Press has this report.

Amanda Pampuro of Courthouse News Service has an article headlined “Piece of Cake? Masterpiece Cakeshop Back in Court for Trial on Discrimination Claims; At the end of a four-day trial, a Denver judge will decide whether a Christian baker who refused to make a transgender birthday cake violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.”

Earlier, Michael Roberts of Westword reported that “Trial Set for Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Trans Woman’s Birthday Cake.”

“The Christian Baker Who Said ‘No’; Jack Phillips is again in court for refusing to bake a cake with a message he objects to”: Columnist William McGurn will have this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Dear Steve”: You can access today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Melissa Murray, Leah Litman, and Kate Shaw, via this link.

“The Supreme Court of Georgia, A Retrospective”: The Federalist Society recently posted this video on YouTube.

“Reconsidering Times v. Sullivan: An influential judge says the ‘actual malice’ standard needs revision.” This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Professional services face losing junior staff to burnout; Mental health problems on the rise as Covid brings greater workloads coupled with a shift to solitary working”: Kate Beioley of Financial Times has this report.

And Tim Kiladze and Tamsin McMahon of The Toronto Globe and Mail have an article headlined “Working from home is causing breakdowns; Ignoring the problem and blaming the pandemic is no longer an option” that begins, “By conventional measures, last year was stellar for Erin Durant. The pandemic had been tough, but as a litigator in Ottawa now working from home, her practice was busier and more profitable than ever.”

“U.S. judges reject ‘cut and paste’ appeal in fight over default on federal loan for Harrisburg restaurant”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

I previously mentioned Friday’s Third Circuit ruling in this post from earlier today.

“Capitol Officer Brian Sicknick shared a central N.J. upbringing, support of Trump with the men now charged with attacking him before his death; A Jan. 6 encounter among three men from Middlesex County pitted them on opposite sides during the Capitol riot; Sicknick ended up dead; George Tanios and Julian Khater are now charged in his attack”: Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Will at-home abortions make Roe v. Wade obsolete? Pressure mounts on Biden to approve telemedicine for the use of abortion pills.” Alice Miranda Ollstein and Darius Tahir of Politico have this report.

“Supreme Court to consider reinstating Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence”: John R. Ellement and Travis Andersen of The Boston Globe have this report.

“Satan’s Lawyers Try Christian-Right Tactics to Erect Winged Goat; The Satanic Temple, an atheist church with 300,000 followers, is fighting to put up shrines and secure religious equality; Or is it just a bunch of trolls?” Erik Larson of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Because the substance of this appeal is as frivolous as its form, we will affirm the District Court’s summary judgment and grant Appellee CBE Group’s motion for damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” So ruled a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a decision issued Friday that has received some attention on Twitter (see, e.g., here, here, and here).

According to the opinion, “Counsel for [appellants] Conboy and Gilsenan simply took the summary judgment section of his District Court brief and copied and pasted it into his appellate brief, with minor changes such as swapping ‘Defendant’ for ‘Appellee.’ Compare Appendix A hereto, with Appendix B. This is not proper appellate advocacy.”

“2nd Circ. Orders New Trial In NYPD Excessive Force Case”: Law360 has this report (subscription required for access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Thursday.

“Does Requiring Only Men to Register for the Draft Violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether one of the last sex-based distinctions in federal law should survive now that women can serve in combat.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

As I most recently noted here, this case — now something of a liberal cause célèbre — certainly did not start out that way and could share a connection with the recent shooting and murder of a federal district judge’s family members.

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

In Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No.20–97, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.

In Longoria v. United States, No. 20–5715, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined, respecting the denial of certiorari.

In Thompson v. Lumpkin, No. 20–594, Justice Elena Kagan issued a rarely seen concurrence in the denial of certiorari, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

And in Smith v. Titus, No. 20–633, Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

“When Constitutions Took Over the World: Starting in the eighteenth century, citizens were promised their rights in print; Was this new age spurred by the ideals of the Enlightenment or by the imperatives of global warfare?” Jill Lepore has this “A Critic at Large” essay in the March 29, 2021 edition of The New Yorker.

“On federal death row, inmates talk about Biden, executions”: Michael Tarm of The Associated Press has this report.

“Judicial Notice: March 20, 2021; Notable legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“A lawsuit aims to stop private firms from claiming copyrights on California laws”: Business columnist Michael Hiltzik has this essay in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Cesar Chavez’s Labor Organizing Legacy at Stake in Supreme Court Case; California growers challenge union officials’ ability to talk with workers in the fields”: Jess Bravin will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court set to hear case pitting unions against agricultural business.”

In commentary, in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, law professor Bethany Berger has an op-ed titled “Will the Supreme Court stand up for the meager rights of farmworkers?”

And online at Forbes, Evan Gerstmann has a post titled “On Monday The Supreme Court May Reveal Just How Conservative It Really Is.”

“Arkansas governor says he signed near-total abortion ban so Supreme Court can decide if it’s a ‘direct challenge’ to Roe”: Devan Cole of CNN has this report.

“Port Corruption Regulator Looks to U.S. Supreme Court for Survival; New Jersey wants to pull out of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor; The agency is asking the high court to stop it”: Paul Berger and Jennifer Smith of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“Clash Between Union Campaigns and Private Property at Supreme Court; A California regulation lets labor organizers enter private property to meet with farmworkers; In a case the court will hear Monday, challengers say that amounts to a government taking of property”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Aaron Nielson Receives the Federalist Society’s 2021 Joseph Story Award”: Christopher J. Walker has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

The Federalist Society has posted the video of the award presentation on YouTube at this link.

“Do We Have to Pay Businesses to Obey the Law? A motel owner in 1964 sued over being forced to accommodate Black patrons; Now agribusinesses are borrowing his argument to bar union organizers.” Law professor Nikolas Bowie has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Law Reviews Are Living on Borrowed Time; Professors and judges feel free to disregard scholarship assessed and edited by students”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

The essay discusses an opinion that Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued earlier this month.

“Behind the Back-Office Blunder That Cost Citigroup $500 Million; Clunky software led to mistaken payments to companies ready to fight to keep the money”: Davide Scigliuzzo and Katherine Doherty of Bloomberg Businessweek have this report.

According to the article, “Citigroup is appealing the decision and has asked that the court keep the money frozen while the dispute continues.”