“Federal court strikes down Transgender Mandate; Fifth Circuit protects doctors’ conscience and medical judgments”: Becket has issued this news release about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

Update: In news coverage, Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Federal court rules against HHS requiring religious doctors to perform gender transitions.”

“California Bill Could Restrict the Use of Rap Lyrics in Court; The bill, which applies more broadly to other forms of creative expression, has unanimously passed the Senate and Assembly and could become law by the end of September”: Livia Albeck-Ripka will have this article in Saturday’s edition of The New York Times.

“NBC News Digital Hires Reuters Supreme Court Correspondent Lawrence Hurley as Supreme Court Reporter”: A.J. Katz has this post at Adweek’s “TVNewser” blog.

“Religious Shield Against Vaccine Mandate Gets 5th Circuit Review”: Robert Iafolla of Bloomberg Law has this report.

According to the article, “The Fifth Circuit’s consideration of the Caris case gives it the chance to codify its groundbreaking decision in Sambrano v. United Airlines — which was unpublished, meaning it’s not binding precedent and applies only to the dispute at hand — by adopting its reasoning in a published opinion.”

The three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit assigned to hear and decide this appeal consist of Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones, James C. Ho, and Cory T. Wilson, so the challengers to the mandate appear to have drawn a very favorable panel.

“Appeals Court Rules Against Vaccine Mandate for Government Contractors; Panel concludes President Biden likely exceeded his authority”: Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“The Liberal Justice Who Warned Against an Activist Supreme Court; ‘Democratic Justice,’ Brad Snyder’s comprehensive biography of Felix Frankfurter, aims to reassess the complicated legacy of the judge and political adviser”: In this Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Book Review, Jeffrey Rosen will have this review of law professor Brad Snyder‘s new book, “Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment.”

“Student loan forgiveness plan has a SCOTUS problem; The limits built into President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive some student loan debt have irked some, but it’s not even clear that the offer as is would survive legal challenges”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“In First-Impression Case, Judge Ordered to Reconsider Former MIT Student’s Request to Proceed Anonymously in Title IX Suit”: Allison Dunn of Law.com has this report.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “1st Cir. Ruling Is Promising for Pseudonymity in Title IX Cases Alleging Biased Sex Assault Investigations.”

Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote Wednesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“In boon for consumers, 3rd Circuit clarifies ascertainability, post-TransUnion standing”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued Wednesday.

Can a federal appellate court grant panel rehearing without the support of at least one judge who joined in the original majority opinion? A case pending on petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit raises that interesting procedural question. Ordinarily, of course, the answer to this question is “no,” since it takes the votes of at least two of the judges on the panel to grant panel rehearing.

In the case that is the subject of this post, however, the answer was “yes,” at least for the time being. Two judges on the three-judge panel issued the original decision, over a dissent from the third judge. Then, one of the two judges in the majority resigned from judicial service. After the losing party sought panel rehearing, another judge was (presumably randomly) assigned to the panel to replace the judge no longer in service. The new arrival on the panel joined with the dissenting judge to grant panel rehearing and issue a new majority opinion written by the original dissenter. The judge who joined in the panel’s original decision was now in dissent.

At his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Decisions by the Court as an Institution; or by the Judge as a Human?” reporting on the recently filed answer to the petition for rehearing en banc. Earlier Crouch had this post discussing the petition seeking en banc review and the amicus briefs in support thereof.

“Guerrero, taking reins of state Supreme Court, isn’t seen shifting from its consensus path; A review of opinions written by Justice Patricia Guerrero while on the appeals court in San Diego gives some clues to what she may bring to the state Supreme Court”: Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune has this report.

“Major shift in medical malpractice rules in Pa. could help victims, but opponents fear the cost”: Angela Couloumbis and Stephen Caruso of Spotlight PA have this report.

“Associational Standing in the Affirmative Action Cases”: Andrew Hessick has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“An Inside Look at How Justices Handled Oral Arguments During the Pandemic: During a recent conference, Justice Elena Kagan explained why colleagues were ‘very split’ on how to make oral arguments work in the COVID-19 era.” Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this post at his “The Marble Palace Blog.”

“Affirmative Action Was Banned at Two Top Universities. They Say They Need It. As a Supreme Court case on college admissions nears, the California and Michigan university systems say their efforts to build diverse classes have hardly worked.” Stephanie Saul of The New York Times has this report.