“Trump Calls for Law Cracking Down on Crime and ‘Rogue Judges’; Ahead of the midterms, President Trump told a Republican gathering that he wants to go after repeat offenders and ‘rogue judges that are criminals’”: Chris Cameron of The New York Times has this report.
Josh Meyer of USA Today report that “Trump says Supreme Court justices who ruled against him ‘sicken me’; The president’s latest attack on Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett comes eight days after Chief Justice said such personal hostility has ‘got to stop.’”
And Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law reports that “Trump Calls on Republicans to Pass Bill to Curb ‘Rogue Judges.’”
“Revisiting Sonia Sotomayor’s Most Infamous Case; Ricci v. DeStefano, Part 1”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.
“Meta and Alphabet’s Courtroom Losses May Not Last”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
“Sidley’s Loss-Eaton Making Supreme Court Debut in Saudi Spy Case”: Jordan Fischer of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“Pa. Supreme Court strikes down mandatory life sentences for 2nd-degree convictions”: Danielle Ohl of Spotlight PA has this report.
Ian Karbal of Pennsylvania Capital-Star reports that “Pa. Supreme Court ruling could lead to largest resentencing effort in state history; The court ruled mandatory life sentences without parole for felony murder are unconstitutional.”
Bethany Rodgers of The Erie Times-News reports that “Pa. Supreme Court abolishes mandatory life for felony murder cases.”
Mark Scolforo and Marc Levy of The Associated Press report that “Pennsylvania court upends mandatory use of life-without-parole for second-degree murder.”
And Jackson Healy of The Associated Press reports that “Pennsylvania Supreme Court ends mandatory life without parole for felony murder; Previously, anyone involved in a deadly felony was sentenced to life in prison, even if they had no involvement in the killing.”
Yesterday’s decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion, three concurring opinions (here, here, and here) and an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
“Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music; Leading music labels sued Cox Communications for failing to terminate accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music”: Ann E. Marimow of The New York Times has this report.
Julian Mark of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court finds internet service providers not liable for users’ pirated music; The decision means Cox Communications will probably not have to pay a judgment in a case brought by dozens of music companies.”
Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rules against music industry in piracy case; The Supreme Court weighed internet service providers’ role in stopping music piracy; Much was at stake for both the industry and internet users.”
Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices won’t place blame on internet service providers in bootleg music dustup; The high court was asked to pin down the standard for holding third parties liable when users violate the law.”
And in commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial titled “Another Supreme Court Knockout; All nine Justices reject an attempt to expand secondary liability.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
“For 2nd Time, an Appeals Court Backs the Trump Administration’s Detention Policy; Courts are weighing whether the administration can hold undocumented immigrants without bond, an issue that may be resolved by the Supreme Court”: Mattathias Schwartz of The New York Times has this report.
Ryan Luetkemeyer of Courthouse News Service reports that “Eighth Circuit backs Trump tactic of detaining immigrants without bond; The decision follows a similar ruling from the Fifth Circuit earlier this year, and further strips away decades of bond hearings for immigrants lacking permanent legal status.”
And Beth Wang and Megan Crepeau of Bloomberg Law report that “Eighth Circuit Backs Mandatory Detention Policy for Noncitizens.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.
“What Would Have Been Justice Scalia’s Legacy If He Survived Into The Trump Presidency? Richard Re poses thought provoking questions about a Scalia counterfactual on Earth 2.0.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Bonus 217: The Day the Supreme Court Wasn’t Supreme; In 1944, Congress enacted a statute effectively giving a specific Second Circuit panel the ‘final and conclusive’ power to resolve a landmark antitrust case — because the Supreme Court lacked a quorum.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.
“J. Harvie Wilkinson III ’72, This Year’s ‘Outstanding Virginian,’ Reflects on a Life of Service; Appellate Judge of More Than 40 Years Says He’s Still ‘Learning Something New Every Day’”: Cooper Allen of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.
“Judicial Conduct Panel Denies Newman’s Reinstatement Bid”: Michael Shapiro of Bloomberg Law has this report.
And Blake Brittain of Reuters reports that “98-year-old US judge loses another challenge to her suspension.”
You can access today’s decision of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States at this link.
“Mail-in Ballots: Flowcharting the Supreme Court’s Choose-Your-Own-Misadventure; Summarizing oral argument in a ‘bonkers’ case via comparative flowcharts.” James Sample has this post at his “Who Decides Who Decides?” Substack site.
“The One Question Trump’s Judicial Picks Refuse to Answer”: Jeffrey Toobin has this guest essay online at The New York Times.
“Goldstein Seeks Acquittal, New Trial on Tax, Loan Fraud Charges”: Holly Barker of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“Justice Scalia’s uncertain legacy”: Richard Re has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative, New Trial by Thomas C. Goldstein”: You can view the 80-page motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, at this link. You can also access Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C to the motion.
“Immigrants ask Fifth Circuit to revisit ruling on ‘historically unprecedented’ mandatory detention policy; A 2-1 panel of the Fifth Circuit sided with the Trump admin — splitting with the vast majority of judges to consider the matter; Now, an attempt to reverse that”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.
“Supreme Court Appears Poised to Reject Late-Arriving Mail-In Ballots Law; A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law in a case that could upend the way that states handle mail-in ballots throughout the country”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.
Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court appears ready to limit mail-in balloting ahead of midterms; Republican groups challenged a law in Mississippi that allows officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after polls close as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Californians may need to mail ballots early as Supreme Court signals support for new election day deadline.”
James Romoser of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Is Skeptical of Mail Ballots That Miss Election Day; Conservative justices voice sympathy with GOP arguments against state laws allowing ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.”
Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court looks poised to limit mail-in ballots, a possible win for Trump; The Supreme Court is deciding whether absentee ballots must be received — and not just postmarked — by Election Day.”
Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court skeptical of states receiving mail-in ballots past Election Day.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court worries Trump’s attack on late ballots could also threaten early voting; The court heard arguments Monday over whether states should be able to count mail-in ballots after Election Day.”
And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court looks to make Election Day great again; Absentee voting rules nationwide could turn on the justices’ opinions of ballot collection on Civil War battlefields.”
“New Top Prosecutor Named in Embattled U.S. Attorney’s Office; Federal judges appointed Robert Frazer to run New Jersey’s U.S. attorney’s office, which has been in disarray over the past year because of uncertainty about who was in charge”: Tracey Tully and Jonah E. Bromwich of The New York Times have this report.
Jeremy Roebuck of The Washington Post reports that “New top prosecutor named in New Jersey, ending impasse over U.S attorney’s office; Robert Frazer replaces a trio of officials the Justice Department installed to lead the office late last year — an arrangement a federal judge ruled was illegal.”
Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “Judges appoint Robert Frazer as U.S. attorney for N.J. after Alina Habba saga.”
Chris Palmer of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Federal judges appointed another new U.S. Attorney in N.J.; Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Frazer was selected to serve as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, the latest twist in an ongoing leadership saga.”
Matt Friedman and Ry Rivard of Politico report that “Judges appoint career prosecutor as New Jersey US attorney in apparent end to standoff; The appointment will not expire unless and until a presidentially-nominated successor is confirmed.”
Joey Fox of New Jersey Globe reports that “After year of turmoil, District Court appoints career prosecutor as new U.S. Attorney; Robert Frazer, who has two-decade history in U.S. Attorney’s office, chosen by judges.”
And Nikita Biryukov of New Jersey Monitor reports that “Federal judges, Trump administration agree on new US attorney for NJ.”
You can access today’s order of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey at this link.
“Two Important Errors at the Watson v. RNC Oral Argument”: Richard Bernstein has this guest post at the “Election Law Blog.”
“The Roberts Court’s Internal Reckoning: The Supreme Court’s shadow docket antics have fractured the judiciary, now internal tensions are spilling out in public and onto the docket.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.
“Absentee Ballots, Asylum, and Too Many A**holes to Count”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link and on YouTube.
“217. The Virtues and Vices of ‘Certiorari Before Judgment’: The Supreme Court is granting certiorari ‘before judgment’ far more than it ever has before; That may be a good development compared to the immediate alternatives, but is it healthy in the long term?” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.
“Judicial Notice (03.22.26): The $10 Billion Law Firm; Another possible victim of Epstein files fallout, another prosecutor’s potential AI fail, a new Biglaw revenue record, and entertainment lawyers on the move.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.
“The case against the Senate filibuster no Republican can make”: Columnist Jason Willick has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“The Supreme Court Could Make It Harder to Vote by Mail in the Midterms; The Republican National Committee wants to toss ballots arriving after Election Day; Critics say thousands of votes — a majority cast by Democrats — are at stake”: Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times has this report.
Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Trump push on mail-in ballots hits Supreme Court; What it means for the midterms; The GOP’s effort to limit mail-in voting will be debated in a case about whether absentee ballots must be received — and not just postmarked — by election day.”
Becky Bohrer of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Cast a ballot and wait for the plane; In Alaska, a grace period for ballots is seen as a necessity.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Mail-In Ballot Deadlines Put Supreme Court in 2026 Election Fray.”
Tierney Sneed of CNN reports that “Trump’s efforts to curb mail-in voting come to the Supreme Court as they falter in Congress.”
Michael Macagnone of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court to hear arguments over meaning of ‘Election Day’; Trump and Republicans take aim at laws that allow counting of late-arriving ballots.”
And in commentary, online at The Washington Times, Joe Gruters has an essay titled “Republicans’ fight for election security heads to the Supreme Court.”
“Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Chris Taylor’s legislative record is a focus in her race”: Mary Spicuzza of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.
“A secularism law some women say makes them feel like ‘outsiders’ heads to Canada’s top court”: Nadine Yousif of BBC News has this report.
“Will the majority-Catholic Supreme Court listen to the church on immigration? ‘Immoral.’ That’s what the Catholic church told the Supreme Court about President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for some babies born in the US. What to watch in the upcoming showdown.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.
“The Courts Cannot Save Us From Trump”: Duncan Hosie has this guest essay online at The New York Times.
“With All Eyes on California’s Supreme Court Vacancy, 2 Appellate Seats Go Unfilled for Years; Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office won’t say if he’s waiting to fill vacancies on the the state’s San Francisco and Sacramento courts of appeal with administration lawyers”: Cheryl Miller of The Recorder has this report.
“Vinalhaven lobsterman petitions Supreme Court over GPS tracking mandate”: Ethan Andrews of The Bangor Daily News has this report.
You can view the cert. petition at this link.
“Can Robot Lawyers Replace Humans At the Supreme Court?” Bloomberg News has posted this video online.
“Article I and the Major Questions Doctrine After Learning Resources; How the Court’s fractured tariff decision may reshape delegated executive authority well beyond trade — and why the future of the major questions doctrine remains far from settled”: David Del Terzo has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.
“A ‘Defender General’?” Michael A. Fragoso has this post at the “Bench Memos” blog of National Review.
