“Biden’s Justice Department is using a law meant to protect abortion clinics in defense of a crisis pregnancy center”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Justice Department standards on federal death penalty called confusing”: David Nakamura of The Washington Post has this report.

“Judicial Commission Releases List Of Supreme Court Contenders; The Judicial Selection Commission released its list of applicants being considered for two slots on the high court and requested public comment in response”: Ben Angarone of Honolulu Civil Beat has this report.

“Twenty-two Republican AGs support lawsuit to end access to mifepristone abortion drug; Hours later, 22 Democratic AGs opposed the lawsuit in their own filing; The filings come in a closely watched case brought in Texas by a conservative group”: Chris Geidner has this post at his “Law Dork” Substack site.

“The Supreme Court thinks it’s special. It’s not. Reporters should cover the justices like any other part of government.” Chris Geidner has this essay online at MSNBC.

“Marching Orders”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast via this link.

“Please be advised that registration for the 2023 Third Circuit Judicial Conference is now open.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit posted this announcement online yesterday.

You can access more information, and register to attend, via this link. The conference will take place from May 10 to May 12, 2023 at the Hilton Philadelphia at Penn’s Landing. (And for those who prefer the Marriott brand, there’s one located right across the street.)

“How software patents are like armed career criminals: (They are mostly not alike.)” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his “Adam’s Legal Newsletter” Substack site.

Divided Third Circuit panel addresses whether an order denying a motion for summary judgment challenging the existence of a Bivens cause of action is an immediately appealable collateral order: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The majority answers “no,” while Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman issued a dissenting opinion explaining why he would answer “yes.”

“In Post-Roe World, These Conservatives Embrace a New Kind of Welfare; Some conservative thinkers are pushing Republicans to move on from Reagan-era family policy and send cash to families; A few lawmakers are listening”: Dana Goldstein of The New York Times has this report.

“The Second Amendment’s Legal Landscape Is Getting Weirder; The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision has given rise to some disturbing new interpretations of what constitutes the right to bear arms”: Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

In other videos of note available on YouTube from the University of Chicago Federalist Society: “Original Intent vs. Original Meaning with the Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook (CA-7)“; “Abortion Federalism: Erin Hawley and Professor Baude“; “Justice Bolick“; and “Judge Porter.”

“‘Common Good Originalism: A Debate’ with Josh Hammer and Professor William Baude.” University of Chicago Federalist Society has posted this video on YouTube.

“Supreme Court Weighs Ethics Code as Critics Push for Change; In 2019, Justice Elena Kagan told Congress that an ethics code for the justices was in the works; Four years later, it has not emerged”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that “Supreme Court under fresh pressure to adopt code of ethics.”

“Supreme Court might have easy outs on elections, immigration”: Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press have this report.

“Signing On With Senator Orrin Hatch; ‘We’re in an election cycle'”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“Heartbreaking: Young Clarence Thomas Was Absolutely Jacked; Before blowing out his Achilles in 1993, Thomas had finished a marathon in three hours and preferred the most cursed workout soundtrack imaginable.” Jay Willis has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Column Reinforced Harmful Gender Stereotypes About Lawyers, Caregiving Roles”: The Legal Intelligencer has published this letter to the editor from Nicole D. Galli and Michelle Browning Coughlin.

The recent installment of my “Upon Further Review” column sought to attribute those outdated views to the Third Circuit as motivation for its rule change proposing a 5 p.m. electronic filing deadline, and not to offer them as my own views, as I think my column makes clear.

“5th Circ. skeptical of ban on gun purchases by people facing felony charges”: Brendan Pierson of Reuters has this report.

And Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal reports that “Judge Frustrated Over Lack of Historical Analysis in Gun Rights Case.”

You can access the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit via this link.

“Appeals court ruling says alleged domestic abusers have a constitutional right to keep their guns; Advocates for domestic violence victims were stunned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which continued a string of court decisions citing the Second Amendment to erase gun restrictions”: Roxanna Asgarian of The Texas Tribune has this report.

“African American Judges Offer Life Lessons”: United States Courts has posted this video on YouTube.

“South Carolina State Trial Judge Confirmed to Fourth Circuit”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Conceding Issues for Purposes of Appeal v. Waiving Issues on Appeal; The Seventh Circuit explained the difference between conceding an issue for purposes of an appeal and waiving the issue outright”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“New Data Reveals Division Among Pennsylvania’s Justices; In 2022, the justices wrote 68 concurring or dissenting opinions or statements; Amid the differing opinions, certain justices were far more inclined to split from the majority than others”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this news analysis.

“More Pork! And the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; A few more words about the constitutional status of animal cruelty laws.” David Post has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Post’s recent earlier post about the case was titled “Let’s Talk Pork! Not the political kind, the real kind, the stuff you get from pigs.” It began, “The Supreme Court has a pretty interesting, and potentially very important, ‘dormant commerce clause’ case before it this term — National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.”

“Another Judge on the Acela Corridor Takes The Thirteenth Amendment Seriously; Judge Matey’s concurrence sketches out the original meaning of ‘involuntary servitude'”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a decision that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

And in earlier news coverage of the case, Robert Iafolla of Bloomberg Law previewed the appellate oral argument in an article headlined “Prison Labor Rights in Focus as 3rd Cir. Hears $5-a-Day Pay Case.”

“5th Circuit gun ruling uses faulty reasoning; When legal history becomes a legal straitjacket”: David Coale has this essay online at The Dallas Morning News.

“Supreme Court justices discussed, but did not agree on code of conduct”: Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

“Discussion, Coercion, and The Pursuit of Truth [State of Law Schools Series]”: The Federalist Society has posted this video on YouTube.

The online event, recorded Monday, featured Paul Clement, Jay Edelson, David Lat, Renée Lettow Lerner, and Eugene Volokh. Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho served as moderator.

“New Pa. Supreme Court opinion opens the door for a patchwork of county policies on wrongly dated ballots; A new set of opinions helped explain the court’s earlier ruling; They also created a new opening for policies on dating ballots”: Jonathan Lai and Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.

Today’s opinions follow on the heels of a per curiam order that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued on November 1, 2022.

Today’s opinions consist of a majority opinion in part, a concurring opinion, and two concurring and dissenting opinions (here and here).

Justice P. Kevin Brobson‘s concurring and dissenting opinion cites to a recent appellate column of mine in footnote six on page 4.

“Is the Supreme Court Out of Step with Public Opinion? No — it is more accurate to say that the Court is at odds with the progressive doctrines of those who make this claim.” James Piereson has this essay online at City Journal.

“Supreme Court justices face new pressure to adopt code of conduct; Justices are under increasing scrutiny for alleged ethical lapses but have repeatedly refused to adopt the same code followed by lower court judges”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“SC Supreme Court, on heels of abortion ruling, now all male for the 1st time in 35 years”: Javon L. Harris and Joseph Bustos of The State of Columbia, South Carolina have this report.

“SC Supreme Court turns down request for rehearing state’s 6-week abortion ban”: Joseph Bustos of The State of Columbia, South Carolina has this report.

“The Last Path to Diversity at College After SCOTUS Strikes Down Affirmative Action”: Professor Peter Dreier, Richard D. Kahlenberg, and Melvin L. Oliver have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.