“Former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz is advising MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in Dominion defamation suit, says his role is ‘extremely limited'”: Kevin Breuninger of CNBC has this report.

“McConnell Threatens ‘Pileup’ if Democrats Change Filibuster Rules; Centrist Democrat Joe Manchin has floated idea of requiring senators to be present to block bills”: Lindsay Wise and Siobhan Hughes of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“Fifth Circuit Sanctions Democratic Election Lawyer Marc Elias in Texas Voting Case”: Dylan Jackson of The American Lawyer has this report on an order that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued last Thursday.

And The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Perkins Coie in the Dock: An appeal court sanctions the Democratic Party’s elections-law firm for lack of candor.”

“McConnell’s Filibuster Throwdown; The GOP leader warns Democrats about killing the 60-vote rule”: This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Stop Telling Stephen Breyer to Retire; The Supreme Court justice doesn’t need liberals to tell him he’s 82.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Federal Circuit Will Have Vacancy as Wallach Goes Senior”: Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Success at the (Usually) Highest Patent Court in the Land”: Adam Feldman has this post at The Juris Lab.

Another federal appellate court isn’t particularly interested in a litigant’s preferred pronouns: Circuit Judge Steven M. Colloton offered these thoughts in a decision that he issued today on behalf of a unanimous Eighth Circuit panel:

As the filings in this case illustrate, clarity suffers and confusion may follow when legal writing refers to a single individual as “they,” especially when the materials advert to other actors who are naturally described as “they” or “them” in the traditional plural.

In a subsequent footnote, Colloton explained, “Consistent with the proceedings in the district court, and for the sake of clarity, we use masculine pronouns when referring to Thomason in this opinion.”

“Pennsylvania Lawmakers Immune From Suit Over Islamic School”: Maya Earls of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“Judiciary Seeks New Judgeships, Reaffirms Need for Enhanced Security”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this news release today.

“I write in response to my concurring colleague’s claim that the government’s brief in this appeal contained misrepresentations of the record and improper argument.” Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins issued this concurring opinion today, in addition to writing the opinion for a unanimous three-judge D.C. Circuit panel in the case.

In his separate opinion, Wilkins was responding to Senior Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman‘s concurring opinion.

“H.R. 1 can’t pass the Senate. But here are some voting reforms that could. A smaller, more targeted bill might attract enough support to get past — or change — the filibuster.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen, author of the “Election Law Blog,” has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“FBI facing allegation that its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh was ‘fake’; A Democratic senator has asked attorney general Merrick Garland to facilitate ‘proper oversight’ into concerns on the investigation”: Stephanie Kirchgaessner of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

You can access the letter from U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) at this link.

“Judiciary Releases Annual Report and Judicial Business 2020”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this news release today.

“In Paulina v. Leontes, Breyer presides over a trial inspired by the Bard”: Angie Gou has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Abortion is Unconstitutional”: Law professor John Finnis has this essay in the April 2021 issue of First Things.

“Eliminate the Bar Exam for Lawyers; The disadvantaged pay the price for an elitist legal system”: Clifford Winston will have this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Kozinski inspired by ex-law clerk, once imprisoned, to pen 5th Circuit amicus brief”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

On Saturday, I had this post about the amicus brief.

“Colorado Supreme Court rules Democrats acted unconstitutionally when they used computers to speed-read bills; High court rules 4-3 in favor of GOP in fight over measure used to combat delay tactic”: Alex Burness of The Denver Post has this report.

Jesse Paul of The Colorado Sun reports that “Colorado Supreme Court confirms that Democrats’ speed-reading of bills violated state constitution; The situation arose from Republicans’ efforts to stall the lawmaking process in protest of Democratic policies.”

Marianne Goodland of Colorado Politics has a report headlined “State Supreme Court: Senate Dems violated Constitution in speed-reading a bill, but District Court Judge went ‘too far’ in ruling.”

And Amanda Pampuro of Courthouse News Service reports that “‘Cacophony’ of Computers Doesn’t Count as Bill Reading for Colorado High Court; A split Colorado Supreme Court found computers can’t be used to speed-read through proposed legislation as the state constitution requires.”

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Colorado at this link.

“Murphy picks civil rights attorney, former Ruth Bader Ginsburg clerk to join N.J. Supreme Court”: Brent Johnson of NJ Advance Media has this report.

Dustin Racioppi of The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey reports that “North Jersey native tapped by Gov. Phil Murphy to state Supreme Court.”

And Elise Young of Bloomberg News reports that “Governor Nominates Former Ginsburg Clerk to New Jersey Supreme Court.”

“Not all the misconduct allegations in a Colorado Judicial Department memo are as serious as implied; Interviews offer a clearer explanation behind the misdeeds that were allegedly covered up”: David Migoya of The Denver Post has this report.

We don’t need no stinkin’ badges! Lynn Desjardins of Radio Canada International reports that “New emblems for Supreme Court carry many symbols.”

And Ian Burns of The Lawyer’s Daily reports that “Supreme Court unveils new heraldic emblems.”

The Supreme Court of Canada has posted online the video of today’s “Unveiling of the Heraldic Emblems of the SCC.”

“Washington State Shows How a Truly Progressive Court Changes Everything; Joe Biden should look the state’s diverse and courageous Supreme Court when making nominations to the federal bench”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Siding with the majority view on an existing circuit split, Eleventh Circuit holds that a represented party’s pro se motion for a new trial, later stricken as improper, sufficed to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this revised decision Friday.

The same three-judge panel reached the same result in its original decision, which issued in early February 2021. Because the party that was seeking to dismiss the appeal as jurisdictionally improper won the appeal on the merits, this case does not present a vehicle for obtaining U.S. Supreme Court review of the question of appellate jurisdiction that is the subject of this circuit split.

“Appeals court hears UO professor’s pay inequality case”: C. Francis O’Leary of The Daily Emerald, the student newspaper of the University of Oregon, had this article back in May 2020.

And Gina Scalpone of Eugene Weekly had an article headlined “Appealing on Zoom: UO gender discrimination case argued in Ninth Circuit.”

Today, a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision reversing the district court’s entry of summary judgment against several of the professor’s claims. Circuit Judge Lawrence J. VanDyke issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

“Are the Elite Supreme Court Advocates Better — or Just Better Known?” Ross Guberman has this post at The Juris Lab.

“Acting SG tells SCOTUS that new administration now supports broad application of crack retroactivity provision of FIRST STEP Act in Terry“: Douglas A. Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog. You can view the Acting Solicitor General‘s letter at this link.

“Florida Republicans Are Passing Unconstitutional Laws That Threaten the State Supreme Court’s Legitimacy”: Adam Richardson has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court’s COVID-19 cases stir up battle between religion, same-sex couples over foster care”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Remember RBG?” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Justice Breyer Should Retire Right Now; If he doesn’t, Democrats run the very real risk that they would be unable to replace him”: Law professor Paul F. Campos has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Should Lady Justice be Blind to Identity When Judges Are Selected? A Response to Professor McGinnis.” Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Janus did not nix union members’ obligation to pay dues: 7th Circuit.” Daniel Wiessner of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued Friday.

“7th Circ. Affirms $4M Chicago Judgment For Imprisoned Man”: Law360 has this report (subscription required for access) on a ruling that Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued Thursday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“The split decision in June Medical did not overrule the precedential effect of Whole Woman’s Health and Casey.” So ruled the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Friday in deciding the case of Planned Parenthood v. Box on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton‘s majority opinion explained:

The Chief Justice’s concurring opinion in June Medical offered the narrowest basis for the judgment in that case, giving stare decisis effect to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), on the essentially identical facts in June Medical. The Marks rule does not, however, turn everything the concurrence said — including its stated reasons for disagreeing with portions of the plurality opinion — into binding precedent that effectively overruled Whole Woman’s Health. That is not how Marks works. It does not allow dicta in a non-majority opinion to overrule an otherwise binding precedent

Circuit Judge Michael S. Kanne issued a dissenting opinion in which he disagreed with the majority’s understanding and application of the June Medical ruling.