Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases, after having granted review in one case last Thursday.

And in Shoop v. Cunningham, No. 21-1587, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent, in which Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined, from the denial of certiorari.

“A Senate in Democratic hands clears the path for Biden to keep remaking the courts; The party’s hold on the Senate majority, as projected by NBC News, means Democrats can confirm more liberal and diverse judges without the threat of Republican obstruction”: Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.

And Marianne LeVine of Politico reports that “Senate control guarantees many more judges for Democrats; Judicial and executive branch confirmations are of the few things the majority party has unilateral control over.”

Additional videos that The Federalist Society has posted on YouTube from its 2022 National Lawyers Convention: I previously linked to the video of Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr.‘s opening remarks and the news coverage thereof. Yesterday, law professor Eric J. Segall, speaking at the same event, responded directly to Chief Judge Pryor’s comments during a panel presentation titled “Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: Affirmative Action Goes to Court.”

Here are links to videos from other noteworthy sessions. The YouTube page for each session contains information on the participants on each panel that will appear if you click “Show more”:

“Showcase Panel III: Lawyers, the Adversarial System, and Social Justice“;

“The Judge’s Role in Choosing a Successor“;

“Special Session I: Dobbs, Roe, Casey, and the Rule of Law“;

“Special Session II: Second Amendment: Aftermath of Bruen; What’s Next at the State Level?“;

“Showcase Panel II: The Mission of Law Schools“;

“Showcase Panel IV The Regulatory Power of Bar Associations“;

“Religious Liberty and Education: Kennedy, Carson, and Parental Rights“;

“The Major Questions Doctrine: West Virginia v. EPA“;

“Regulatory Elephants in Statutory Mouse Holes?“;

“Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture“;

“Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture“; and

“Fourteenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate.”

“50 years later, the bell-bottomed zombie Equal Rights Amendment staggers on”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“What the Pro-Life Movement Lost and Won”: Columnist Ross Douthat will have this essay in the Sunday Review section of tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Kingdom of Antonin Scalia: This Supreme Court has embraced his doctrine of judicial modesty in an imperious fashion.” Liza Batkin has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“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.

“Newsom’s two appointees to California Supreme Court win approval, making history”: Kevin Rector of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Oakland civil rights attorney confirmed to California Supreme Court, becoming its second LGBT justice.”

“Abortion ruling author Alito gets standing ovation at conservative legal gala; Four of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority received a warm reception at the Federalist Society event”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Federal Judge David Stras Reflects on the Holocaust and First Amendment at Harvard Law School Talk”: Leah J. Lourenco, Jasmine Palma, and Linda Zhang of The Harvard Crimson have this report.

“Millions Poured into State High Court Races Gain Parties Little”: Alex Ebert and Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law have this report.

“‘A Moment of Truth for the Federalist Society’: Politics or Principle? The conservative lawyers’ group killed its white whale. Now it must cope with its internal contradictions.” Peter S. Canellos has this article online at Politico Magazine.

“Counsel chose to attend a ballgame instead of timely filing his client’s response to the motion to dismiss.” So explained an unpublished per curiam opinion that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

Earlier, the opinion explains that it wasn’t just any ballgame: “counsel moved for a 14-day continuance in order to watch his son make his minor league baseball debut in Illinois.”

The Ninth Circuit, however, was not impressed — affirming the dismissal of the client’s suit due to the attorney’s failure to file a timely response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss after the requested extension was denied. Unfortunately, the opinion does not name the attorney who opted to attend his son’s minor league baseball debut, making it difficult to determine whether the debut was itself especially memorable.

“The Supreme Court lost Republicans the midterms; A leading Democratic data analyst explains what happened in 2022 — and why abortion proved to be the decisive issue”: Zack Beauchamp of Vox has this report.

“Conservative U.S. judge mocks Federalist Society’s critics at annual convention”: Jacqueline Thomsen and Nate Raymond of Reuters have this report.

Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal reports that “Judge William Pryor Mocks Federalist Society Critics; Pryor’s comments during FedSoc’s annual convention made fun of a sitting senator, a law professor and the media.”

And at “Above the Law,” Joe Patrice has a post titled “Federal Judge Weeps For Poor Defenseless Federalist Society, Ruthlessly Bullied By Legal Bloggers.”

The Federalist Society has posted on YouTube a video of the remarks under the title “Opening Address + Showcase Panel I: The Legal Profession and Constitutional Culture [NLC 2022].”

“Women Remembered to Vote on Abortion; Contrary to the media narrative, women responded to what the Supreme Court did in June”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Closely Divided in Case on Native American Adoptions; In considering the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices explored congressional power and equal protection principles”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Law on placement of Native American children divides Supreme Court; Justices seemed inclined to reconsider parts of law that prioritizes foster or adoptive parents based on tribal status.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court divided on adoption law that keeps Native American kids in tribal homes.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Law on American Indian Adoptions; Texas couple says preference for adoptive parents who are tribal members violates equal-protection guarantees.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court grapples with battle over adoption of Native American children.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs case pitting non-Indian families against tribes over child adoptions.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Haaland v. Brackeen, No. 21-376.

“The high stakes in a Supreme Court case about American Indian children; Brackeen v. Haaland attacks a 44-year-old law enacted to halt cultural genocide”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Clarence Thomas May Destroy Native Children’s Rights Based on a Lie.”

And also online at Slate, Michele Kriegman has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court May Ensure Native Kids’ Ancestry Is Erased — Just Like Mine Was; The Indian Child Welfare Act helped keep indigenous families together; Now SCOTUS could tear the law apart.”

“Kansas election results: All six state Supreme Court justices to stay on the bench.” Katie Bernard and Katie Moore of The Kansas City Star have an article that begins, “Months after Kansans overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment removing the state level right to an abortion, a majority of voters opted to retain state Supreme Court justices likely to uphold that right.”

“‘Totally Out of Control’ Attorney Fees in Mass Torts Dodge Appellate Review; U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, in a 2021 holding in the multidistrict litigation over Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, called common benefit fees ‘totally out of control,’ sending shockwaves throughout the mass torts bar; But the Ninth Circuit, in a five-page unpublished opinion, found it lacked jurisdiction to review the order.” Amanda Bronstad of law.com has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued last Thursday.

In related news, I am serving as appellate counsel for attorneys who have objected to the imposition of MDL common fund fee assessments in non-MDL cases in an entirely separate MDL proceeding, and their Ninth Circuit appeal (which is currently at the briefing stage) is from an actual final order, meaning that the Ninth Circuit remains on track to address the merits of this issue in the not-too-distant future.

“Supreme Court Weighs State Court’s Jurisdiction Over Company; Virginia-based railroad Norfolk Southern says retired employee shouldn’t be able to sue it in Pennsylvania court”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Defamation Lawsuits Dropped in Jeffrey Epstein Saga; Virginia Giuffre says she might have been mistaken in accusing Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz of sexually abusing her”: James Fanelli of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“The Supreme Court Case That Could Break Native American Sovereignty: Haaland v. Brackeen could have major consequences for tribes’ right to exist as political entities.” Rebecca Nagle, host of the “This Land” podcast, has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Justices Debate State Law Opening Courts to Suits Against Corporations; A novel Pennsylvania law requires corporations that do business in the state to consent to being sued there, even if the suits have nothing to do with the state”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and the audio of today’s oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168.

“Designer ready for high court fight on excluding gay couples”: Jesse Bedayn of The Associated Press has this report.

“Race Question in Supreme Court Adoption Case Unnerves Tribes; The issue is whether a federal law that seeks to place Native American foster children in Native American homes is constitutional; The case could turn on whether the justices see tribes as racial groups or sovereign nations”: Jan Hoffman has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Karin Brulliard of The Washington Post has an article headlined “In Arizona, small tribe watches warily as Supreme Court takes up Native adoption law.”

Online at The Guardian (UK), Cecilia Nowell has an article headlined “For decades, welfare laws kept Native American families together. Will the supreme court end them? The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed to redress years of mass separations of Native families. This month, the court hears a case that could overturn it.”

And Felicia Fonseca and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press report that “Native child welfare law faces major Supreme Court challenge.”

“Hawaii Struggles To Revise Gun Laws After Supreme Court Decision; Honolulu is the only county in the state that hasn’t yet finalized new concealed-carry gun rules, leading to a backlog in permit applications”: James Gonser of Honolulu Civil Beat has this report. So if Paul D. Clement claims to be heading to Hawaii for a purpose other than a vacation, there’s reason to believe him.

“Supreme Court refuses to consider requiring 12-person juries; The court declined to take up an Arizona fraud case that could have eliminated the use of six- or eight-person juries in felony cases in the six states where they’re allowed”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court’s Gorsuch says justices should require 12-person juries.”

You can access at this link the dissent from the denial of certiorari that Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued today.

“Ketanji Brown Jackson issues her first written opinion as a Supreme Court justice — a dissent”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report. You can access the dissent from the denial of certiorari at this link.