“Why we all should want the suspended cheerleader to win her Supreme Court case”: Law professor Justin Driver has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Exploring the Meaning of and Problems With the Supreme Court’s (Apparent) Adoption of a ‘Most Favored Nation’ Approach to Protecting Religious Liberty Under the Free Exercise Clause: Part One in a Series.” Law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein have this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Petty Sticklerism That Fortuitously Benefits An Undocumented Immigrant is Still Petty Sticklerism”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Making More Sense of the Limited Cert Grant in NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett; Perhaps the Court can consolidate the New York Case with Young v. Hawaii”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Initial thoughts on the constitutional right to concealed carry in NY Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett, and a possible trip to Hawaii”: William Baude has this post at the “Summary, Judgment” blog.

“Sheldon Whitehouse Is No Friend of the Courts; The senator declares war on amicus briefs and attacks the right to express views he disfavors”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Samuel Alito’s Culture-War Warning; The Justices punt on California’s sanctions against Texas”: This editorial will appear in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“US appeals court listens to Tennessee abortion ban arguments”: Kimberlee Kruesi of The Associated Press has this report.

And Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Tennessee Fights to Reimpose Ban on Selective Abortions; The Volunteer State wants an appeals panel to reinstate two abortion restrictions, including a ban on the procedure when a woman is seeking it because of the gender or race of the child.”

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

“Barrett and Gorsuch Have to Choose Between Originalism and Expanding Gun Rights”: Professor Saul Cornell has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Sharp Divide at the Supreme Court Over a One-Letter Word; In an immigration ruling that scrambled the usual alliances, the justices differed over the significance of the article ‘a'”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “An unusual coalition as Supreme Court rules for immigrant.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to immigrants facing deportation.”

Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Justices Again Back Longtime Immigrants in Deportation Case.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Conservative justices split in ruling for immigrant fighting deportation.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Deportation Hearing Notices Can’t Arrive Incomplete; The justices said Thursday that proper notice of a non-citizen’s removal hearing must be a single document — not two partially complete ones.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch’s Persnickety Libertarianism Gave Immigrants a Win at the Supreme Court; The decision came down to a one-letter word.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman has a post titled “The Supreme Court’s Libertarian Wing Squares The Corner; Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett won’t ‘endow the Executive Branch with maximum bureaucratic flexibility.’“

“Justices Question Whether Student’s Snapchat Rant Caused a Substantial Disruption”: David L. Hudson, Jr. has this post at NYU’s First Amendment Watch.

“Who is Dissenting in the Ninth Circuit?” Adam Feldman has this post at The Juris Lab.

“U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to immigrants facing deportation”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Because the effect on out-of-state commerce of Kentucky’s price-gouging laws is entirely dependent upon Amazon’s independent decisionmaking with regard to the structure of its online marketplace, the application of those laws to Kentucky-based third-party sellers on Amazon in connection with sales to Kentucky consumers is unlikely to offend the extraterritoriality doctrine of the dormant commerce clause.” So concludes a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a ruling issued today.

“LA County Asks Ninth Circuit for Emergency Stay of Homeless Housing Order; A federal judge has ordered Los Angeles city and county officials to house or offer housing to homeless people by October”: Martin Macias Jr. of Courthouse News Service has this report on an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“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.