“How using the 14th Amendment against Trump went from a ‘pipe-dream fantasy’ to the Supreme Court”: Marshall Cohen of CNN has this report.
Mark Sherman and Nicholas Riccardi of The Associated Press report that “Trump’s fate and an obscure section of the Constitution collide at Supreme Court.”
Andrew Chung and John Kruzel of Reuters have a report headlined “Trump heads to US Supreme Court with a familiar claim: He is untouchable.”
In commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Trump’s legal arguments for staying on the ballot are embarrassingly weak; It’s hard to imagine this Supreme Court removing Trump from the ballot; But his lawyers gave the justices very little to work with.”
Online at The New Republic, Matt Ford has an essay titled “The Trump Disqualification Case Is the Supreme Court’s Most Consequential Moment; The most pivotal matter before the high court has attracted a flurry of interest from all quarters, all jostling to help the justices decide whether the former president can stand for reelection.”
Online at Slate, Smita Ghosh has a Jurisprudence essay titled “There’s a Huge Originalist Hole in Trump’s Argument for Staying on the Ballot.”
Also online at Slate, Alec Winshel has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The One Way the Supreme Court Can Keep Trump on the Ballot and Still Maintain Its Credibility.”
“Trump lost his bid for immunity — again. Now what? Here are three scenarios for how the Supreme Court could handle Trump’s imminent appeal.” Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein of Politico have this report.
And at “Just Security,” Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman, and Joshua Kolb have a post titled “How Long Will Trump’s Immunity Appeal Take? Analyzing the Alternative Timelines.”
“Supreme Court’s Options Narrow as Trump Loses Each Appeal; After the DC Circuit’s common-sense ruling, the justices will struggle to accept the former president’s immunity defense in the Jan. 6 case”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
“Anti-abortion group’s studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case; A large number of other, non-retracted studies find mifepristone to be very safe”: Beth Mole of Ars Technica has this report.
“Jussie Smollett asks Illinois Supreme Court to overturn his conviction for lying about hate crime attack”: Matthew Hendrickson of The Chicago Sun-Times has this report.
“Trump plans to stay away from Supreme Court arguments after turning past court appearances into campaign stops”: Paula Reid, Kristen Holmes, and Katelyn Polantz of CNN have this report.
“The Supreme Court Knows What It Must Do With Trump’s Immunity Ploy”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“The Extraterritorial Reach of Criminal Statutes”: William S. Dodge recently had this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog.”
“Bayer Loses Roundup Appeal in Blow to Bid to End Litigation; US appeals court rejects Bayer’s argument in weedkiller case; Decision is setback to strategy to get Supreme Court review”: Tim Loh of Bloomberg News has this report on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.
“Not wearing a mask during COVID-19 health emergency isn’t a free speech right, appeals court says”: Mike Catalini of The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.
“Janet Protasiewicz campaign official claims vulgar reason for embedding horses in ads”: Molly Beck and Jessie Opoien of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have this report.
“Trust the Border Patrol (Even if you don’t actually trust it)”: Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”
“E-Filing Back Online as Pa. Court System Grapples With Cyberattack”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report. Kudos to the Pennsylvania Courts for avoiding a protracted shutdown of its e-filing system.
“California ammunition background check law can remain in effect, court rules”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on an order that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity; The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?” Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage of The New York Times have this report.
Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post reports that “Trump has no immunity from Jan. 6 prosecution, appeals court rules.”
Sadie Gurman of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Immunity Claim; Ruling by three-judge panel tees up possible further appeals to entire circuit or Supreme Court.”
And Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Trump is not immune from prosecution for bid to subvert the 2020 election, appeals court rules; The unanimous 57-page decision is a major win for special counsel Jack Smith.”
You can access today’s unanimous per curiam ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link. (The opinion is also available here via The New York Times.)
