“Supreme Court Is Told Trump Tariffs Are Illegal $3 Trillion Tax”: Erik Larson of Bloomberg News has this report.

You can access here, here, and here the three Briefs for Respondents filed today.

“Appeals Court Weighs Whether Alina Habba Is a Lawful U.S. Attorney; President Trump installed his former personal lawyer as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey; A legal challenge could clarify the limits of his power to keep U.S. attorneys in office without Senate involvement”: Jonah E. Bromwich and Tracey Tully of The New York Times have this report.

Joey Fox of New Jersey Globe reports that “Third Circuit judges probe ‘unusual’ circumstances of Habba’s appointment; Three-judge panel will decide whether to overturn lower-court decision negating Habba’s authority as U.S. Attorney.”

Ry Rivard and Erica Orden of Politico report that “Appeals court panel appears skeptical of Trump admin’s maneuvers to keep Alina Habba in place; The panel of judges seemed to question the administration’s moves during more than an hour of oral arguments.”

Kara Scannell of CNN reports that “DOJ lawyer grilled by appeals court on legitimacy of Alina Habba’s role as US attorney in New Jersey.”

Erik Uebelacker of Courthouse News Service reports that “DOJ defends Alina Habba’s unusual appointment before skeptical Third Circuit; Government attorneys tried to defend Habba’s appointment as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, which a lower court deemed unlawful in August.”

Mike Catalini of The Associated Press reports that “Appellate judges question moves to keep Alina Habba in place as top New Jersey prosecutor.”

And Celine Castronuovo of Bloomberg Law reports that “Trump Lawyer Habba’s Role as NJ Prosecutor Draws Court Doubt.”

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

“Ninth Circuit frowns at military’s reasons for banning transgender service members; The appellate panel indicated that the military’s focus on gender dysphoria as a medical reason to discharge transgender service members seemed ill suited to the seven plaintiffs who have served with distinction”: Edvard Pettersson of Courthouse News Service has this report.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted the video of today’s oral argument on YouTube.

“Appeals Court Lifts Block on Trump’s Oregon Troop Deployment; Deployment can move forward, for now, under a preliminary ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; But legal wrangling will likely continue”: Anna Griffin and Mattathias Schwartz of The New York Times have this report.

And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Trump Administration Can Deploy National Guard in Portland, Court Says; Decision halts a temporary order that had stopped the dispatch of state Guard members to the Oregon city in response to protests.”

“Pennsylvania Has a Big Election Too; Gov. Josh Shapiro is campaigning for three Democratic supreme court justices”: Matthew J. Brouillette will have this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The Santos Commutation Is No Joke”: Jeffrey Toobin has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Will the Voting Rights Act Survive SCOTUS?” You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link and on YouTube.

“Tom Homan and the Case of the Missing Fifty Thousand; Lawmakers and ordinary citizens have to keep asking about the bag of cash, or accept an executive branch without any accountability”: Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Appeals court, in 2 to 1 split, puts hold on restraining order barring Trump from deploying Oregon National Guard”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report.

And Mark Berman of The Washington Post reports that “Trump can send troops to Portland, appeals court says; A federal judge appointed by Trump had blocked his administration from sending federalized National Guard members to the city.”

You can access today’s per curiam decision of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Donald Trump’s Deep-State Wrecking Ball; Russell Vought is using the White House budget office to lay waste to the federal bureaucracy — firing workers, decimating agencies, and testing the rule of law”: Andy Kroll has this Letter from Washington article in the October 27, 2025 issue of The New Yorker.

“Let’s take a closer look at the sentencing of Kavanaugh’s would-be killer; Eight years for attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice? That’s incomprehensible.” Jill Jacobson has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court Will Weigh Gun Restrictions for Drug Users; The Second Amendment case tests a federal law used to convict Hunter Biden that bars drug users and addicts from possessing guns”: Ann E. Marimow of The New York Times has this report.

Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to hear challenge to law barring drug users from guns; The law is the one that Hunter Biden, the son of former president Joe Biden, was convicted of violating in 2024; Joe Biden later pardoned his son.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court will decide if ‘habitual drug users’ lose their gun rights under 2nd Amendment.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Weigh Gun Rights for Drug Users; Trump administration is defending a federal law restricting possession of firearms, which was also used to convict Hunter Biden.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “Can pot smokers and other drug users legally own guns? Supreme Court to decide; A lower court ruled that unless a gun wielder is high, past drug use alone is not disqualifying under the Second Amendment.”

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear case involving whether drug users can be barred from owning guns.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“184. The Massive Stakes of Trump v. Illinois; The Trump administration’s 29th emergency application — to let it deploy federalized National Guard troops in Chicago on a profoundly dubious factual predicate — is a make-or-break moment for the Court.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.