“The Intersection of Appellate Law and Public Interest Practice | Hannah Mullen”: You can access the audio of this week’s new episode of the Texas Appellate Law Podcast, which eventually gets around to hosting all the cool kids, via this link.

Note to the Ninth Circuit — Independent League Baseball is technically not Minor League Baseball: Last night, I had a post about the remarkable, and unfortunate, story of the lawyer who sought a filing extension to attend his son’s professional baseball debut, had the extension denied, nevertheless attended the debut, filed late the document as to which an extension was denied, and as a result suffered the dismissal of his client’s case. This all came to my attention when the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case by means of an unpublished opinion issued Wednesday.

One longtime “How Appealing” reader kindly drew that Ninth Circuit opinion to my attention via email. In my post about that ruling, I noted that the Ninth Circuit did not make it easy to determine whether the son’s professional baseball debut was memorable, because the per curiam affirmance did not name either the attorney or his son.

Proving that my blog’s readers continue to be the very best imaginable, today another longtime reader emailed, no doubt after doing a bit of sleuthing on Pacer, to forward a link to the baseball playing son’s online statistics.

The statistics, however, themselves give rise to another issue. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion stated that “counsel moved for a 14-day continuance in order to watch his son make his minor league baseball debut in Illinois.” However, the son’s page of online statistics show that he made his professional debut with the Joliet Slammers of the Independent League. Sorry Ninth Circuit, but technically speaking, the Independent League is not a part of Minor League Baseball.

“Supreme Court races offer anti-abortion groups a win on a tough night; Their loss of state supreme court races in Ohio and North Carolina could imperil the future of the procedure in two of the country’s most populous states”: Megan Messerly of Politico has this report.

“Supreme Court’s conservative rulings left mark on election results; The court’s ruling on abortion and guns helped energize Democrats, while decisions on redistricting might have aided Republicans”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Fishermen target Chevron deference in SCOTUS petition over onboard monitors”: Clark Mindock of Reuters has this report.

According to the article, “A petition filed by attorney Paul Clement with the high court Thursday asked the court to take the case and find the rule requiring fishermen to pay for the monitors is inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens fishing act or to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.”

“SFFA funded by large conservative groups with Federalist Society ties; Public tax records from 2015 to 2020 showed that large conservative donors offer most of the financial backing for Students for Fair Admissions, the nonprofit organization bringing forward the two lawsuits that could end race-conscious college admissions; The documents also reveal that the organization spent more than $8 million over this time period”: Anika Seth of The Yale Daily News recently had this report.

Two days after the article appeared online, the newspaper published this letter to the editor in response from law professor Steven G. Calabresi.

“Conservative lawyers hail Alito for abortion ruling; Four Supreme Court justices were in attendance as the Federalist Society celebrated its 40th anniversary with gala”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.