“70. The Shoddy Politics of Trump v. Anderson: The Section 3 disqualification case provided the Supreme Court with a chance to engage in true constitutional statesmanship; The five justices in the majority . . . didn’t.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“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panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected that argument on plain error review in a per curiam, unpublished opinion issued today (on a Sunday, no less!).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.”

“Revenge of the Statesmen: How statesmanship defeated nerdiness in Trump v. Anderson.” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“UPenn Law Professor Amy Wax Speaks Out About the Sanctions Brought Against Her; ‘It’s all psychologized,’ Wax said; ‘What the woke catechism, the woke set of precepts, has done is that they’ve taken subjective reactions and made them reign supreme, which is completely contrary to every First Amendment principle that ever existed’”: Christine Charnosky has this article online at The Legal Intelligencer.

“Charlie Adelson moved to another prison as he serves life sentence for Dan Markel murder”: Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat recently had this report.

“Dark and Stormy: The porn star whose testimony could help convict Donald Trump before the election has a new career as a gay icon and no intention of paying the $670,000 that she owes the former president.” Jeffrey Toobin has this article online at Air Mail.

“Trump Posts $91.6 Million Bond for Defamation Judgment in Carroll Case; Donald J. Trump is contending with civil penalties that are together worth more than half a billion dollars”: Benjamin Weiser and Ben Protess of The New York Times have this report.

“How the Conservative Legal Movement Is Waging a War on Sex: Activists spent five decades trying to get a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade; Now, they have bigger, weirder ambitions.” Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“It’s Not Just Embryos. Even the Dead Have More Rights Than Women.” Law professor Tonja Jacobi has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“Group suing over Pfizer diversity fellowship program loses US appeal”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

And in commentary, Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has a post titled “Pfizer diversity case splits appeals court over ‘naming names’ to establish a right to sue.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Texas Can Enforce Online Porn Age-Check Law, Beating Injunction; Age-check law isn’t unconstitutional, Fifth Circuit says; Law may restrict ‘Game of Thrones,’ romance books, per dissent”: Maia Spoto of Bloomberg Law has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

“Who Exactly Is Behind the Supreme Court’s Big Mifepristone Case? The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine claims to be an organization of doctors worried about mifepristone. The paper trail is more ambiguous.” Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic has this report.

And online at Slate, Miriam Becker-Cohen has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Biggest Anti-Abortion-Rights Lie Is Back at the Supreme Court.”

“Momentum builds in major homelessness case before U.S. Supreme Court”: Claire Rush of The Associated Press has this report.

“Sonia Sotomayor Should Get Real That the Supreme Court Is Partisan; Justices say the Court isn’t political, but c’mon”: Jonathan Chait has this post at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine.

“With Colorado ruling, the court displays an ‘originalism of convenience’”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Fishing for John Roberts’s Executive-Branch Records; A justice delayed could become a justice denied”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“A Counterpoint On Crystal Clanton — From A Leading Libel Lawyer; There’s no reason for Crystal Clanton to say anything about the controversy surrounding her, according to Libby Locke of Clare Locke”: David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Judge Nancy Maldonado — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Pepperdine University Announces Launch of Ken Starr Institute for Faith, Law, and Public Service at the Caruso School of Law”: You can access the news release at this link and the Institute’s website at this link.

“First Amendment right to a drag show? Texas students ask Supreme Court for emergency ruling.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

You can view the Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review at this link.

“Trump’s on the ballot, but the Supreme Court left key constitutional questions unanswered”: John Fritze and Marshall Cohen of CNN have this report.

“Liberal justices’ rage at the Trump ballot decision is incoherent”: Columnist Jason Willick has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Thank the Alabama Supreme Court for its IVF decision. I’m serious.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

And in related news coverage, Kim Bellware of The Washington Post reports that “Fourth couple sues Alabama clinic at heart of IVF court ruling.”

“Supreme Court sets Trump immunity claim in D.C. trial for April 25”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“Everybody Hates the Supreme Court’s Disqualification Ruling; Trump and his diehards aside, many of those who wanted the court to leave the former president on the ballot still think the justices managed to screw it up”: Matt Ford has this essay online at The New Republic.

“The Originalist Disaster in Trump v. Anderson”: Mike Rappaport has this post at “The Originalism Blog.”