“On guns, originalism as insanity”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Execution Stayed for Man Whose Jury Voted 11-1 to Spare Him; Kevin Eugene Smith had been set to be put to death in Alabama on Thursday evening, but a federal appeals court granted a last-minute stay”: Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs of The New York Times has this report.

“Trump Abandoned Key Claim in Mar-a-Lago Records Fight, DOJ Says; Federal appeals court is set to hear arguments on Nov. 22; Proceedings should come to an end, Justice Department says”: Zoe Tillman of Bloomberg News has this report.

“U.S. judge blocks Florida law curbing professor speech”: Mike Scarcella of Reuters has this report.

And Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Federal judge blocks Florida law against ‘woke’ teachings in colleges, calls it ‘positively dystopian’; Judge Mark Walker took shots at both sides for their arguments, but ultimately sided with professors and students.”

You can access today’s 139-page ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida at this link.

“Third Circuit panel upholds constitutionality §922(g)(1)’s felon-in-possession gun prohibition after Bruen“: Douglas A. Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” about a published, 50-page, per curiam opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

The all-female three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Patty Shwartz and Cheryl Ann Krause and Senior Circuit Judge Jane R. Roth. (The district judge whose ruling the Third Circuit affirmed is also female.) A footnote at the opinion’s outset states, “We issue this precedential opinion per curiam to reflect both its unanimity and the highly collaborative nature of its preparation.”

The three-judge Third Circuit panel consisted of judges appointed by Presidents from both major political parties, and the panel also consisted of a judge from each of the three states within the Third Circuit.

The opinion’s conclusion describes the basis for the defendant’s Pennsylvania law felony offense as follows: “illicitly taking welfare money through fraudulent misrepresentation of his income.”

Although I do not expect the Third Circuit to rehear this matter en banc, if the defendant were to seek rehearing, I would not be surprised if one or more judges dissented from its denial. Moreover, this issue is likely to someday soon be the subject of a circuit split requiring U.S. Supreme Court resolution.