“Judges Focus on Diversity in Clerkship, Internship Hiring”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has this report.

“FTC Head Says Supreme Court Ruling Puts More Than $2 Billion for Cheated Consumers at Risk; Congressional hearing suggests legislative effort to restore agency’s powers won’t be quick”: Brent Kendall had this article in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, No. 19-863. And Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“A Lively Supreme Court Argument Over a Cheerleader’s Vulgar Rant; The justices struggled to determine how the First Amendment applies to public schools’ power to punish students for social media posts and other off-campus speech”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court seems wary of bold pronouncements in student speech case.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court weighs student’s right to free speech in the internet era.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Limits to Schools’ Power to Patrol Student Speech; Angry cheerleader’s intemperate Snapchat drew a yearlong suspension from team that Pennsylvania school board asks court to reinstate.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court wary of giving schools broad power to punish students’ off-campus speech.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court ponders cheerleader’s profanity-laced Snapchat, student free speech rights.”

In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jeremy Roebuck has a front page article headlined “A Pa. cheerleader’s profane Snapchat rant lands before the Supreme Court; The justices expressed skepticism at the Schuylkill County teen’s suspension for her foul-mouthed Snapchat post; But they struggled with the prospect of drawing broad lessons from her case.”

In today’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Christina Tatu has a front page article headlined “Can schools control student speech outside class? Supreme Court weighs Schuylkill County cheerleader’s case.”

In today’s edition of The Republican-Herald of Pottsville, Pennsylvania, John E. Usalis has a front page article headlined “Schuylkill County cheerleader’s father sees school district case as ‘weak’ as Supreme Court hears free speech arguments.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Wary Supreme Court weighs student’s Snapchat profanity case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court grapples with cheerleader’s free speech case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Cheerleader’s Profane Snapchat Post Tests Speech Rights at Supreme Court.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court wary of giving schools broad authority over off-campus speech; The justices were concerned that giving schools authority to punish students for swearing off campus would go too far.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court grapples with First Amendment rights of schoolchildren in cheerleader case.”

Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court justices grapple with school speech case over cheerleader’s profane Snapchat post; Justices appeared poised to issue narrow ruling in complex case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court grapples with free speech case involving student’s Snapchat outburst; The justices were divided on whether to issue a sweeping ruling bringing First Amendment law for schools into the social media age or settle for a more modest decision.”

Mark Walsh of Education Week reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Wary About Extending School Authority Over Student Internet Speech.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Justices hear First Amendment clash over cheerleader’s Snapchat.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Hears Free Speech Case Over Cheerleader’s Snapchat Post; The justices seemed unconvinced that students’ off-campus speech should be regulated.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “‘Frightened to Death’: Cheerleader Speech Case Gives Supreme Court Pause.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Is ‘Frightened to Death’ by the Case of a Foul-Mouthed Cheerleader.”

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The free speech case so complicated it seems to have stumped the Supreme Court; The Court’s ‘cursing cheerleader’ case proves devilishly difficult to unwind.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Cheerleader Free Speech Case Puts Liberals in a Bind; The ACLU and conservatives want to protect students’ speech rights while the mainstream left is worried about enabling harassment.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Tinker, Mahanoy, Students, Hecklers, and Lawyers: The heckler’s veto, in school and out.”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L., No. 20-255.

“A court case on the right to anonymity makes liberals and conservatives unlikely allies”: Columnist Kathleen Parker has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Would Justices Alito and Thomas Have the Supreme Court Hear Minor State Law Cases?” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Senate Begins Considering Diverse Slate of Biden Judicial Nominees; Democrats are hoping to remake the courts to counter the Trump administration’s conservative push”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Biden judicial pick Ketanji Brown Jackson defends her independence in Senate hearing.”

Kevin Freking and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “Dems laud racial diversity as panel turns focus to judges.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Potential future Biden Supreme Court pick questioned by senators on race.”

Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Biden’s pick to serve on powerful DC-based appellate says her experience as a Black jurist ‘might be valuable’ if confirmed.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Senators aim fire at each other at first hearing for Biden judicial nominees; Nominees mostly sailed through with few signs of vigorous opposition from Republicans.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Senate hears from Biden’s high-profile judicial nominees for first time.”

Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law reports that “Biden Circuit Picks Highlight Public Defense Work at Hearing.”

Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “Senate Committee Probes Biden’s Diverse Court Nominees; President Biden’s first slate of judicial nominees faced Senate questioning about race, professional backgrounds and packing the Supreme Court.”

And earlier, on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Ketanji Brown Jackson, Hot Supreme Court Prospect, Faces Senate Judiciary Committee.”

You can view via this link the video of today’s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

“Ninth Circuit Lifts Ban on 3D-Printed Gun Blueprints; The appeals court decision loosens regulations on sharing untraceable 3D-printed gun files, but the Biden administration is expected to propose new restrictions on so-called ghost guns by May 8”: Nicholas Iovino of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“LA Detectives Must Face Civil Rights Suit for Teen’s Confession”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a decision that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Court rules that Jordan is best place for wrongful death case after 6-year-old dies in Hardee’s restaurant accident”: Charmaine Little of the St. Louis Record had this report back in August 2019.

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this decision reversing the district court’s dismissal of the case for forum non conveniens because Hardee’s had waited too long to seek that relief.

“Biden’s first 100 days and the federal judiciary: Prompt action and a Supreme Court controversy.” Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of the Brookings Institution.

“Federal appeals court mandates trial within 6 months on claims of St. Louis police protest abuse”: Robert Patrick of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report.

And Joe Harris of Courthouse News Service reports that “Panel Orders New Look at Limits on St. Louis Police Tactics Against Protesters; The Eighth Circuit told a lower court to dissolve a preliminary injunction blocking police from using tear gas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters if it hasn’t issued a final decision by Halloween.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“Social Worker Faces Revived Suit Over Suicide in Texas Prison”: Maya Earls of Bloomberg Law has a report (subscription required for full access) that begins, “A social worker must face a claim that she was deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of a man who died by suicide in jail, the Fifth Circuit said in reversing a finding that she was immune from suit.”

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

“Why Supreme Court case about cheerleader’s Snapchat rant matters to students everywhere: In Supreme Court cases, our tendency is to focus on who should win; That’s not what matters most in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.” Law professor Aaron Tang has this essay online at USA Today.

“At Supreme Court, Mean Girls Meet 1st Amendment”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

C-SPAN will broadcast the oral argument live, online via this link starting at 10 a.m. eastern time.

“The End Game of Court-Packing”: Law professors Adam Chilton, Daniel Epps, Kyle Rozema, and Maya Sen have posted this paper at SSRN.

“A Biden Judge Would Be the First-Ever Muslim on the Federal Bench. Some Muslims Are Furious.” Aymann Ismail has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And at his “The Vetting Room” blog, Harsh Voruganti has a post titled “Judge Zahid Quraishi — Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.”

“Former NC chief justice Cheri Beasley joins US Senate race. Here’s who else is running.” Brian Murphy of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.

And Alex Rogers of CNN reports that “First Black woman to be North Carolina Supreme Court chief justice announces Senate bid.”

“Zantac generics plaintiffs hope SCOTUS Ford decision rescues claims against brand-name makers”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ford Motor Co v. Montana Eighth Judicial District is only a month old, but it’s already a workhorse.”

“Schumer waiting for recommendation on Supreme Court expansion”: Alexander Bolton of The Hill has this report.

“Cheerleader punished for a Snapchat takes her case to the Supreme Court”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Analysis: Are U.S. Supreme Court conservatives aiming to expand gun rights?” Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters have this report.

And online at The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an essay titled “The Supreme Court hangs a gun on the wall.”

“Supreme Court to Hear Case on Carrying Guns in Public; The justices, who have not issued a major Second Amendment ruling since 2010, will consider a challenge to a longstanding New York gun control law”: Adam Liptak has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to hear gun-control case next term on carrying weapons outside home.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court agrees to decide whether gun owners have right to carry a weapon in public.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Case on Right to Carry Concealed Guns for Self-Defense; Review of New York restrictions on carry rights will be first major Second Amendment case before the court since 2010.”

John Fritze and Bart Jansen of USA Today report that “Supreme Court takes case seeking to expand concealed-carry rights in public places.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to hear major Second Amendment case over concealed-carry permits.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Ready to Create a Constitutional Right to Concealed Carry.”

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court will hear a major Second Amendment case that could gut US gun laws; The Supreme Court could make the NRA’s dreams come true.”

“Institutional Realism, Disclosure Laws, and the Americans for Prosperity Case”: Richard Pildes has this post at the “Election Law Blog.”

“López Obrador’s bid to alter Mexican Supreme Court seen as threat to judicial independence”: Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post has this report.

“Supreme Court Should Be Wary of California Donor Law; California wants charities to have to disclose their major donors; That’s the start of a slippery slope”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“To unpack the Supreme Court, expand it; There’s no way to reverse what Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have done to the integrity of the courts; The best that can be done is to mitigate the damage”: David Litt has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“A 16-Year-Old Gasoline-Ethanol Feud Gets Supreme Court Showdown”: Jennifer A Dlouhy of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Antonin Scalia Would Be Appalled at What Supreme Court Conservatives Are Arguing Now; A majority of the court seems to think that public criticism of high-dollar donors is the real threat to the First Amendment”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s conservatives are quaking over cancel culture; The Court’s right flank is afraid that the monster under their bed will cancel them.”

And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Originalist and Textualist Justices Should Reject Argument that First Amendment Includes Right to Anonymous Association, and Instead Apply Well-Established Exacting Scrutiny in AFP Case.”

“‘My Heart Sank’: States Worry as Supreme Court Eyes Gun Laws’ Reach.” Henry Goldman and Carey Goldberg of Bloomberg News have this report.

“The Supreme Court’s conservatives may have the votes to expand Second Amendment rights”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court Wary of Donor Disclosure Requirement for Charities; The case, from California, could affect the regulation of ‘dark money’ in political contests”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court seems ready to strike down California’s disclosure requirements for some charitable donors.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court may shield Koch-backed nonprofit from disclosing its donors to California.”

And John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “Privacy vs. transparency: Supreme Court conservatives question California donor disclosure requirement.”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, No. 19-251.

“Supreme Court to decide if students have right to post vulgar comments about teachers”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Can schools discipline for off-campus student speech? Court to take up First Amendment case.”

And Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court considers whether students can be punished for comments outside class; A federal appeals court ruled that Brandi Levy was beyond the reach of school authorities when she lashed out on Snapchat about not making the varsity cheerleading team.”

“Supreme Court to Rule on Whether C.I.A. Black Sites Are State Secrets; A Guantánamo detainee is seeking information from two former government contractors in connection with a Polish criminal inquiry into a facility there”: Adam Liptak and Carol Rosenberg have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to consider terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida’s request to learn more about his CIA-sponsored torture.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Will Hear Case Over Testimony on Guantanamo Detainee; Government appeals ruling mandating testimony from contractors about Abu Zubaydah’s treatment in a foreign CIA detention center.”

And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court agrees to decide case of Guantanamo detainee seeking details on CIA ‘black sites.’“

“Supreme Court won’t hear Texas challenge to California LGBTQ law”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme court dodges dispute between Texas, California over religious freedom, gay rights.”