“Hillsdale dads on the bench discuss role of judiciary”: Joshua Mistry of The Hillsdale Collegian has an article that begins, “Nobody screamed at a pair of federal judges in the Hoynak Room Oct. 2 — unlike what happened to one of them last year at Stanford Law School — while they discussed the common misunderstanding that the role of the judiciary is to create policy rather than apply law.”

“Is SCOTUS Error Correction in Capital Cases Feasible?” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Let’s Not Bring Back Jail for Swearing”: Online at The New York Times, law professors Jacob D. Charles and Matthew L. Schafer have a guest essay that begins, “With its new term starting this month, the Supreme Court will likely confront calls to upend constitutional law yet again. One very possible target is people’s everyday right to voice their political opinions, to speak up, even just to swear.”

“Conservative States Seek to End Protections for Immigrant ‘Dreamers’; An appeals court is considering a challenge that could end DACA, which has allowed hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States”: Miriam Jordan and Mattathias Schwartz of The New York Times have this report.

And Andrew Kreighbaum of Bloomberg Law reports that “Judges Probe DACA’s Harm to States in Fifth Circuit Showdown; Legal status, employment of half a million Dreamers at stake; Defenders argue that Republican states can’t prove harm.”

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

“US Appellate Judge Urges Caution on Judge-Shopping Rule; Judiciary panel considering potential action on judge-shopping; Judge Quattlebaum raised separation of powers concerns”: Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“J&J Talc Bankruptcy Stays in Texas, Boosting Settlement Odds; J&J beats Justice Department bid to move case to New Jersey; J&J talc bankruptcies had twice been stopped in New Jersey”: Jonathan Randles and Steven Church of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Ex-Alaska Judge Texted With Prosecutor About Ongoing Trial; Joshua Kindred texted his clerk-turned-prosecutor about case during trial; Defense counsel to ask for new trial”: Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Former Alaska federal judge texted with prosecutor about trial, lawyers say.”

“Biden’s lame-duck judicial confirmation prospects”: Russell Wheeler has this post online at The Brookings Institution.

“The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Pivoting Back to Victimhood at the Supreme Court”: Sarah Lipton-Lubet has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Reform Is in the Air”: Columnist David French has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Ban Abortion. End Gay Marriage. Outlaw Birth Control. A powerful Christian conservative legal group is quietly reshaping America through the courts. Here’s what it’s after.” Susan Rinkunas has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation”: Law professor Jack Goldsmith has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“The Colorado Cake Baker Wins Again; The left keeps harassing Jack Phillips, despite High Court victories”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Why the Supreme Court May Not Decide the 2024 Election After All”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Inside the Fight Against the Estrada Filibuster; A lieutenant’s perspective”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“Clarence Thomas Thinks the Real Victims Are Prosecutors Who Engage in Misconduct”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “Three Supreme Court Justices Wanted to Talk About Anything But Richard Glossip’s Life; Oklahoma is fighting to spare a man it previously sentenced to die; Clarence Thomas wants to hear more about prosecutors’ feelings instead.”

“Minnesota Supreme Court reviews indecent exposure conviction of woman who went topless; The attorney for Eloisa Plancarte argued that she did not commit a ‘lewd’ act under Minnesota law when she exposed her breasts in a Rochester gas station parking lot”: Louis Krauss of The Minnesota Star Tribune has this report.

And Mark Wasson of Courthouse News Service reports that “Minnesota high court asked if showing breasts, elbows can be indecent exposure; A state attorney said ‘it’s conceivable’ that someone could be convicted of indecent exposure for showing any body part, not just private parts.”

You can view the video of yesterday’s Supreme Court of Minnesota oral argument via this link.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court grapples with governor’s 400-year veto, calling it ‘crazy’”: Scott Bauer of The Associated Press has this report.

“Splintered Supreme Court Wrestles With Case of Oklahoma Death Row Inmate; Some justices said the court was powerless to grant relief to the inmate, Richard Glossip; Others seemed ready to order a new trial or at least an evidentiary hearing”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court closely divided on new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate; Richard Glossip’s case has attracted bipartisan support after the state’s top law enforcement official revealed prosecutorial misconduct.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “‘Not a conviction that can stand’: Oklahoma asks Supreme Court for new trial for death row inmate; Independent investigations led the Oklahoma attorney general to conclude that prosecutors hid evidence that might have led to an acquittal.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs granting new trial for twice-convicted murderer, upending death sentence.”

“The Supreme Court Ghost Gun Arguments Were Cringeworthy; The justices have seemingly given up on the common-sense approach of using a law’s purpose to understand its meaning”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“US sides with Ukraine in fight with Taliban victims over $42 mln from Russian bank”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“The Problem With Banning Legacy Admissions; Laws from the left and lawsuits from the right seek to control who gets into elite schools; Higher ed should reassert its independence”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Colorado court ducks deciding if baker could refuse to make LGBTQ-themed cake”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on a 4-to-3 ruling that the Supreme Court of Colorado issued yesterday.

“Judge in Donna Adelson murder trial disqualifies her new attorneys over conflicts”: Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat has an article that begins, “Just three weeks after Donna Adelson’s murder trial unexpectedly unraveled when her lead lawyer withdrew, the judge presiding over the case ordered that her two new attorneys can’t represent her either.”

“Majority of Supreme Court Appears Receptive to Biden Administration Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’; At issue was how the Biden administration had interpreted a federal statute to regulate kits that could be assembled into homemade guns, skirting background checks”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post has an article headlined “Citing omelets and chili, justices seem likely to uphold ghost gun rules; A majority of Supreme Court justices seem skeptical the government overstepped in requiring serial numbers and background checks for ghost guns.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears to lean in favor of federal ban on sale of gun kits.”

Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen of USA Today have an article headlined “Supreme Court discusses omelets when debating whether ‘ghost guns’ can be regulated.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court casts skeptical eye toward unregulated ‘ghost’ guns.”

“The Supreme Court’s Originalists Are Fundamentally Wrong About History; The Founders didn’t believe the Constitution had a fixed meaning; So why do so many of the justices?” Andrew Lanham has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Appeals court signals it will uphold Massachusetts assault weapons ban”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

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

“FBI probe of Kavanaugh constrained by Trump White House, report finds; A Democratic senator’s report finds new evidence of the White House controlling an FBI investigation into sexual assault claims against the Supreme Court nominee”: Beth Reinhard of The Washington Post has this article.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has posted online his report, titled “Unworthy of Reliance: The Flawed Supplemental Background Investigation Into Sexual-Assault Allegations Against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

“US supreme court to hear arguments in major ‘ghost guns’ case; Garland v VanDerStok first in series of high-profile cases justices will hear in what is set to be contentious term”: Cecilia Nowell of The Guardian has this report.

Devin Dwyer of ABC News has a report headlined “What is a gun? As ghost guns proliferate, Supreme Court will consider; Supreme Court will hear challenge to ATF rule on self-assemble gun kits.”

And Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “The Court and ‘ghost guns.’“

“Georgia Supreme Court Restores State’s 6-Week Abortion Ban; The ban will resume while the court considers an appeal to a decision that had briefly allowed greater access to abortions in the state”: Christina Morales of The New York Times has this report.

And Praveena Somasundaram of The Washington Post reports that “Georgia Supreme Court reinstates 6-week abortion ban as it considers appeal; The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday moved to restore the state’s six-week abortion ban as it considers an appeal.”

“‘Ghost Guns’ Case Before Supreme Court Has Major Implications for Industry in Flux; The number of untraceable homemade guns recovered at crime scenes has fallen since the enactment of rules restricting the sale of the weapons, according to law enforcement statistics”: Glenn Thrush of The New York Times has this report.

“One Big Decision Awaits the Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Why the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling is untenable in a democracy; Justices’ ruling in immunity case creates one legal standard for presidents and a different standard for citizens”: Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Guns, transgender rights, porn: The Supreme Court begins another term.” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“In pet food case, US Supreme Court grapples with weight of a footnote”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.