“Since our court’s Second Amendment intermediate scrutiny standard can reach any result one desires, I figure there is no reason why I shouldn’t write an alternative draft opinion that will apply our test in a way more to the liking of the majority of our court.” Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke today issued an opinion striking down a California county’s gun regulation under the Second Amendment.

To celebrate the occasion, Judge VanDyke also issued a concurring opinion in the voice of that court’s more liberal majority predicting precisely how the en banc Ninth Circuit will reverse him, replete with mocking footnores.

“Jabbing the Administrative State: The vaccine mandate case could have major implications for the administrative state.” John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Hemphill v. New York, No. 20-637. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Biden Misread the Supreme Court’s Ruling Against the OSHA Vaccine Rule; The court did not foreclose robust new workplace vaccination standards, nor bless the radical right’s blueprint for annihilating the ‘administrative state'”: Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.

“License Plates, Flagpoles, and Editorial Discretion: On government curation and government speech.” Stephen E. Sachs has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“No Pseudonymity in Yale Law School DinnerPartyGate Lawsuit”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“In Rebuke to Trump, Supreme Court Won’t Block Release of Jan. 6 Files; The case was a constitutional clash on the scope of executive privilege and whether a former president may invoke it when the current one has waived it”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rejects Trump’s request to withhold Jan. 6 materials from House committee investigating Capitol riot.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects Trump’s plea to shield White House records from House inquiry.”

And Jess Bravin, Brent Kendall, and Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Withhold Documents Related to Jan. 6 Probe; Former president claimed executive privilege over evidence sought by congressional investigation into Capitol attack.”

You can access this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Supreme Court hears arguments on campaign finance law, issues statement on NPR report”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Roberts, Sotomayor and Gorsuch Address Reports of Conflicts Over Masks; Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has diabetes, has been participating in Supreme Court arguments remotely; Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, her seatmate, is the only member of the court who does not wear a mask”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Which Is the Worst Federal Appeals Court, and Why Is It the Fifth Circuit? A court stacked with far-right Trump goons has gone completely off the rails.” Lisa Needham has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Sotomayor says she did not ask Gorsuch to wear a mask on the Supreme Court bench”: Roberg Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Gorsuch, Sotomayor Counter Reports of Covid-19 Mask Tiff; Supreme Court justices say ‘we are warm colleagues and friends.’”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch push back on reports of dispute over mask wearing.”

Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “The Debate Over Masks Reaches the Halls of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Brian Flood of Fox News reports that “Sotomayor, Gorsuch dispute NPR report about masking feud in joint statement: ‘It is false; ‘While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends,’ Sotomayor and Gorsuch said.”

And at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog, Christopher Mills has a post titled “Clearing Up Misreporting about Justice Gorsuch and Masks.”

“Biden nominates federal public defender to be the first woman of color on the appellate court based in Philadelphia; Arianna J. Freeman, if confirmed, would join an appellate bench that oversees cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands”: Jonathan Tamari and Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.

Today, the White House issued a news release titled “President Biden Names Thirteenth Round of Judicial Nominees.”

“The curious case of the clerk and the racist texts”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this new essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court to hear Ted Cruz challenge to campaign finance law; McConnell argued it is an ‘ideal opportunity’ for justices to wipe out the 2002 law”: Todd Ruger of Roll Call has this report.

“Texas Abortion Law Could Stay in Effect for Months After U.S. Appeals Court Ruling; Appeals court holds Texas Supreme Court should weigh in on unanswered questions before challenge to law can move forward”: Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of Indiana’s ‘revenge porn’ law”: Dan Carden of The Times of Munster, Indiana has this report.

Niki Kelly of The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana reports that “Indiana’s revenge-porn law upheld; State high court unanimous in Steuben County case.”

And Katie Stancombe of The Indiana Lawyer has a report headlined “Justices: Indiana’s ‘revenge porn’ statute constitutional.”

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

“U.S. Supreme Court carries over decision on whether to take McGirt appeals”: Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has this report.

“Gorsuch declines to wear mask, as bench-mate Sotomayor works from her office”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Divisions at the U.S. Supreme Court are playing out in differences among the justices”: Nina Totenberg had this follow-up audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Penn law dean starts process that could lead to sanctions on professor Amy Wax; In a noon email to the law school community, Dean Ted Ruger said he would invoke a faculty review process, which must occur before any action, major or minor, could be taken”: Susan Snyder of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“A New (Read Old) And Improved 14th Amendment? Reviewing Barnett and Bernick’s ‘The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment.'” Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“An Error in Justice Gorsuch’s Concurrence in the OSHA Vaccine Mandate Case; The Justice claimed OSHA took a past position that the agency did not actually take”: Patterico has this post at his Substack site, “The Constitutional Vanguard.”

“Federal appeals court refuses rehearing in challenge to SDUSD vaccine mandate”: Morgan Cook of The San Diego Union-Tribune has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Conservative appellate justices want Supreme Court to take up San Diego schools’ COVID rules.”

And Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Hearing in Vaccination Case; 10 Dissenters Say That Allowing Secular Exemptions but Not Religious Ones Requires Strict Scrutiny; They Maintain That Heed Is Not Being Taken of U.S. Supreme Court’s April 9 Decision.”

You can access Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring in and dissenting from that denial, at this link.

“FAA Must Explain Ruling to Pilot Who Accidentally Had Beer”: Bernie Pazanowski pf Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a redacted decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued Friday.

According to the opinion, the pilot consumed pulled pork that a restaurant prepared by cooking it in beer, even though the restaurant’s menu’s description of this item contained no mention of beer.

“Supreme Court justices aren’t ‘scorpions,’ but not happy campers either”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases but requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

And in Trustees of New Life in Christ Church v. Fredericksburg, No. 21-164, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

“U.S. 5th Circuit court asks Texas Supreme Court to weigh in on challenge to Texas abortion law”: Madlin Mekelburg of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Texas’s six-week abortion ban remains in effect after federal appeals court ruling.”

Lomi Kriel of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas abortion law challenge heads to state’s supreme court, likely adding more delays to case; The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision means it could take months before abortion providers’ challenge to the restrictive law returns to a federal court.”

Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court delays legal challenge to Texas abortion law.”

Tierney Sneed of CNN reports that “Federal appeals court sends abortion case to Texas Supreme Court.”

Jon Brown of Fox News reports that “Federal appeals court sends Texas abortion law case to Republican-majority state Supreme Court; The action is seen as another blow for opponents of the abortion restriction measure.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Appeals court detours Texas abortion ban case to state Supreme Court; 5th Circuit’s decision, 2-1, likely prolongs enforcement of unusual anti-abortion law.”

And Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that “Texas Six-Week Abortion Law Case Gets Routed to State Top Court.”

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

“Should a Religious Flag Fly Over a Government Building? The Supreme Court takes up a case that could further undermine the ‘Lemon test’ that prohibits government-religion interaction.” William J. Haun has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“The Important Choice of Law Questions Lurking in Tomorrow’s Stolen-Pissarro Argument: The applicability of Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing — no, wait! I promise it’s important ….” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Judge Gilbert Merritt, fixture of Tennessee judiciary for decades, dies”: Mariah Timms of The Tennessean has this report.

“A Daughter’s Quest to Free Her Father’s Killer: Katie Kitchen wanted to live up to her progressive ideals; Her own family tragedy presented a chance.” Eren Orbey has this Annals of Justice article in the January 24, 2022 issue of The New Yorker.

“Pretext Explains (But Does Not Justify) the SCOTUS Invalidation of the OSHA Vaccine Rule”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“A lot is riding on North Carolina’s 2022 judicial elections”: Law professor Gene Nichol has this essay online at The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Fate of Nazi-looted Pissarro to be decided by US supreme court; The legal battle over the painting, in the hands of a Madrid museum, has spanned more than 15 years”: Ashifa Kassam of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“The Persistent Gender Gap at the Supreme Court Lectern: More than 40 years after Ruth Bader Ginsburg last appeared as a lawyer at the Supreme Court, relatively few women argue cases there.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.