“Judicial Notice (03.09.24): ‘It Could Have Been Worse’; More musings on Trump v. Anderson, free-speech rulings in the circuit courts, notable hires by Sidley and Simpson, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Loyola first asserts § 922(o) is unconstitutional because machineguns are protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and § 922(o) conflicts with our Country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected that argument on plain error review in a per curiam, unpublished opinion issued today (on a Sunday, no less!).

“Does the Law of Standing ‘Need a Rewrite’ After TransUnion? Another federal appellate judge expresses discontent with current standing doctrine.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“No More Justices at the State of the Union; John Harlan thought it unconstitutional for him to attend; Biden proved him right”: Nathan Lewin will have this op-ed in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Will the Supreme Court Now Review More Constitutional Amendments? After their ruling on a Fourteenth Amendment case, which keeps Donald Trump on the ballot, will the Justices be willing to revisit Dobbs, or Second Amendment cases?” Jill Lepore has this Comment online at The New Yorker.

“Do Americans still have a right to privacy? With courts coming for abortion and IVF, it’s hard not to wonder what the Supreme Court will go after next.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Trump ballot ruling raises new questions even as it answers others; Legal scholars say the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump should be allowed to run for president leaves some ambiguity that could lead to confusion after the November election”: Patrick Marley of The Washington Post has this report.

“A so-called activist Supreme Court shrugs at extreme campus speech rules”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Naïve Pundits Enabling the Supreme Court’s Big Con; The widely held belief that the high court occupies a special place in the Constitutional firmanent is out of joint with that body’s increasingly ignominious decisions”: Jess Coleman has this essay online at The New Republic.

“After Trump ballot ruling, critics say Supreme Court is selectively invoking conservative originalist approach; Some legal scholars criticized the court for ignoring arguments based on the text and original understanding of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in a ruling that kept Trump on the ballot”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

In commentary, online at The New Republic, Jason Linkins has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Savage Indictment of the Republican Party; If you read the high court’s disqualification ruling closely, you’ll see that the justices unanimously agree that the GOP is a lawless institution.”

And at the “Lawfare” blog, Ilya Somin has a post titled “What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in the Trump Section 3 Case: The Court botched the legal reasoning and relied heavily on dubious policy arguments.”