“Trump’s Claim That He Can’t Be Prosecuted Collides With Precedents; The former president says he has ‘absolute immunity’; But an array of Supreme Court decisions tells a different story”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“May it please the court? These three Supreme Court first-timers sure hope so.” Jenna Greene of Reuters has this report.

“9th Circuit stays ruling against California ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines”: Kevin Rector of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Ninth Circuit suggests it will uphold California’s ban on large-capacity gun magazines.”

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines can remain in effect, court rules.”

You can access Tuesday’s order of an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Republican effort to impeach Wis. Supreme Court justice loses steam”: Patrick Marley of The Washington Post has this report.

“Justices Probe Fed., State Law Interplay In Maritime Insurance”: Daniel Tay of Law360 has this report (subscription required for access).

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: A Scalia argument, then a yacht excursion.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Taking the Fifth”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“New Article on Manufactured Finality: I have a new article on the variables that go into manufactured finality, its various forms, and its likely future.” Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog about a paper he recently posted to SSRN titled “Manufactured Finality.”

“The Supreme Court’s Animal House: From tortoises to dolphins, lions to owls, the Supreme Court building is sprinkled with animal sculptures; A curator’s booklet tells what they mean.” Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this post at his “The Marble Palace Blog.”

“The Supreme Court can rein in appeals court extremism — or encourage it; Is the Fifth Circuit’s lawlessness a bug — or a feature — to the Roberts court?” Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“Religion vs. LGBTQ+ rights: Supreme Court weighs ‘conversion therapy’ bans for minors; The issue of banning ‘therapy’ to make a gay or lesbian person straight has reemerged as the Supreme Court has become more conservative and receptive to appeals dealing with religious freedom.” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Christian baker faces new lawsuit over gender-transition cake after Supreme Court; Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips says he hopes latest court date is ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ of an 11-year legal battle”: Brianna Herlihy of Fox News has this report.

“Supreme Impact: How an Ohio think tank is shaping the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda.” Anna Staver of The Columbus Dispatch has a report that begins, “Buckeye Institute, an Ohio conservative think tank, has quietly become one of the most prominent players shaping the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda.”

“Does the Supreme Court’s Cherry-Picking Inject Politics Into Judging? By choosing among and sometimes writing the questions the court agrees to answer, recent studies say, the justices have distorted the judicial process.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Not Especially Judicious”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“The Supreme Court Is Not as Politicized as You May Think”: Nora Donnelly and law professor Ethan Leib have this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Pair of Wisconsin Supreme Court developments set the stage for a political power struggle”: Molly Beck and Jessie Opoien of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have this report.

“The Value of Moot Courts in Preparing for Appellate Oral Argument”: This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will appear in tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“At the Court Tuesday: two legal puzzles.” Lyle Denniston has this blog post.

“Supreme Court’s second week heats up with Nancy Mace gerrymandering case”: Kaelan Deese of Washington Examiner has this report.

“Justice Janet Protasiewicz rejects calls to recuse herself from redistricting cases”: Molly Beck of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

Reid J. Epstein and Julie Bosman of The New York Times report that “As Wisconsin Supreme Court Takes Up Maps Case, Impeachment Threat Looms; Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s decision to participate in a case challenging state legislative district maps could spur Republicans to impeach her.”

And Scott Bauer of The Associated Press reports that “Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justice rejects GOP call to recuse on redistricting cases.”

You can access yesterday’s Memorandum Decision and Order of Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz at this link.

“Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on the Supreme Court and being Miss Idaho”: You can access today’s new episode of NPR’s “Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me!” via this link.

“Son of Justice Antonin Scalia to Argue in Supreme Court Debut; Children of the justices rarely appear before high court; Employment case marks first argument for former DOL chief”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law has an article that begins, “Eugene Scalia is about to tie his father in the number of cases he’s argued before the US Supreme Court.”

“Dan Markel murder: Prosecutors ask judge to hold Charlie Adelson’s parents in contempt.” Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

And several weeks ago, Burlew had an article headlined “Dan Markel case: New judge assigned a month before start of Charlie Adelson murder trial.”

“Justices to consider choice-of-law clauses in maritime insurance contracts”: Ronald Mann has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And Daphne Zhang of Bloomberg Law reports that “Yacht Owner’s Fight With Insurer Tees Up Rare High Court Review.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online at this link the oral argument Day Call for Tuesday, October 10, 2023.

“The 2023 Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture”: The Heritage Foundation will be hosting the lecture on October 25, 2023, featuring Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho speaking on the topic of “Pressure is a Privilege: Judges, Umpires, and Ignoring the Booing of the Crowd.”

You can register to attend virtually or in-person via this link.

“The Supreme Court argues about how to make a terrible civil rights case go away; A SCOTUS case about disabled travelers is likely to end in a whimper; That’s probably the best possible outcome”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Can’t Stop Falling for Phony Plaintiffs”: Sarah Lipton-Lubet has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Supreme Court’s Liberals Are Already Fed Up With This Term”: Jay Willis has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Skeptical of Argument That Could Hobble Consumer Watchdog; The justices heard a challenge to the way Congress funded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but seemed persuaded that it was constitutional”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court majority seems skeptical of challenge to consumer watchdog; Justices hear challenge to 5th Circuit ruling that struck down funding mechanism for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sounds skeptical of lenders’ challenge to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Jess Bravin and Andrew Ackerman of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Justices Wary of Argument Against Financial Watchdog’s Funding; Case that could hobble the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau faced a skeptical court.”

John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “Credit card? Auto loan? How the Supreme Court CFPB case could add ‘chaos’ to economy; The payday lending industry is trying to undermine funding for the CFPB, a contentious agency that conservatives oppose; The case could have sweeping implications for the mortgage industry.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court grapples with constitutionality of Elizabeth Warren’s consumer watchdog agency.”

“Senior judge disciplined for bullying; Lord Justice Lewis receives formal warning for misconduct”: At his “A Lawyer Writes” Substack site, Joshua Rozenberg has a post that begins, “A member of the Court of Appeal has received a formal warning for misconduct after an inquiry concluded that his behaviour amounted to judicial bullying.”

According to the post, “Lord Justice Lewis was found to have behaved in a rude and hostile manner towards counsel in a hearing. Whilst not all the complaint allegations were made out, the nominated judge found that Lord Justice Lewis had intervened excessively in counsel’s submissions, throughout the hearing, in a manner which became increasingly harsh and rude and to the extent that it constituted judicial bullying.”

“Can Elena Kagan save the Supreme Court?” Law professor Steven Lubet has this essay online at The Hill.

“The Supreme Court’s uncharacteristic moment of sanity; Justices considering a case against the CFPB seem unlikely to trigger a second Great Depression”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Back to constitutional basics”: Lyle Denniston has this post at his blog.

“The Care and Feeding of Supreme Court Justices: From lavish vacations to fancy dinners, conservative activists have constructed an elaborate infrastructure to reward ideological loyalty on the high court.” Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.