“Man pleads guilty to arson after setting fire to cars at the US Supreme Court in 2020”: Holmes Lybrand of CNN has this report.

“The Supreme Court cases asking the justices to put themselves in charge of everything, explained; The justices are threatening to put themselves in charge of every single federal agency; They should resist that temptation”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Oregon Supreme Court could be next to rule on Trump’s eligibility for the ballot under the 14th Amendment”: Marshall Cohen of CNN has this report.

“Texas makes a most unconservative Supreme Court argument”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The justices will keep Trump on the ballot. Here’s how (and why) they’ll do it.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Trump’s Argument for Immunity in 2024 Is the Opposite of His Stance in 2021; During his second impeachment trial, the former president argued that criminal prosecution was a more appropriate way to seek accountability since he had left office”: Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage of The New York Times have this report.

“Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations; A lawyer for the former president said he would be immune from prosecution for the murder of a political rival while in office unless he was first impeached and convicted in Congress.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Safety of a Product’s Design Under Pa. Law Remains in Hands of Jurors, Not Industry Customs or Government Standards; The evidentiary battle over whether a defendant may offer evidence that a product’s design is in accord with customs in the industry or complied with government standards has ended”: Larry E. Coben has this essay online at The Legal Intelligencer.

“Plaintiffs Say Mitsubishi Waived ‘Centerpiece’ Argument for Do-Over of $976M Defective Seatbelt Trial”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.

“Tom Girardi to face May trial in alleged $15-million fraud”: Harriet Ryan and Matt Hamilton of The Los Angeles Times have this report.

“A shocking turn: Nazi-looted Pissarro painting won’t return to Jewish family.” Kevin Rector of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Court rules Spain can keep painting stolen by Nazis from California man’s family.”

And at the “Transnational Litigation Blog,” William S. Dodge has a post titled “Ninth Circuit Decides Cassirer in Favor of Spain.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“The Conservative Legal Movement’s Latest, Wildest Attack on Government As We Know It; A Supreme Court built to gut the administrative state has a chance to make your drinking water a little more poisonous”: Madiba K. Dennie has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Trump and Smith: Reunited at the D.C. Circuit; The former president shows up for his first D.C. Circuit argument.” Anna Bower has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“Appeals court action opens door to possible return to office for Andrew Warren; A 59-page opinion sends Warren’s case back to the federal judge who said he did not have the power to return him to office”: Sue Carlton and Dan Sullivan of The Tampa Bay Times have this report.

And Chris Marr of Bloomberg Law reports that “Prosecutor Ousted by DeSantis Wins Appeal on Free Speech Claims; Andrew Warren vowed he wouldn’t enforce anti-abortion laws; Lower court found non-protected reasons motivated removal.”

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

“Clinton, Obama Circuit Judges Shun Retirement as Election Looms; 3 of 17 eligible judges have stepped down, plan to semi-retire; Biden has 39 appellate court confirmations”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“It’s on, baby! Why the Supreme Court isn’t constitutionally barred from resolving Trump’s eligibility before the election.” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“Texas tells Supreme Court to stay out of border razor wire fight; The Lone Star State accuses the federal government destroying its property under the guise of immigration enforcement”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report. You can access the filing at this link.

“Trump’s Legal Arguments Are Getting Increasingly Embarrassing; His arguments for why he should get presidential immunity for Jan. 6 are beyond belief, and outside the scope of history”: Jeremy Stahl has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Trump’s Lawyer Walked Into a Trap; By the end of the argument, everyone knew it”: George T. Conway III has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Also online at The Atlantic, David A. Graham has an essay titled “A Thought Experiment About SEAL Team 6 Goes Terribly, Terribly Wrong; Pressed in court, Trump’s lawyers made an argument that would destroy nearly all limitations on presidential power.”

“Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Immunity Claim; A three-judge panel appeared unlikely to grant the former president’s request that it throw out federal criminal charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election”: Alan Feuer, Charlie Savage, Eileen Sullivan, and Glenn Thrush have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Rachel Weiner, Spencer S. Hsu, Perry Stein, and Devlin Barrett have a front page article headlined “Judges skeptical that Trump is immune from Jan. 6 prosecution.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Sarah D. Wire has a front page article headlined “Appeals court judges appear skeptical of Trump presidential immunity argument.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, C. Ryan Barber and Sadie Gurman have an article headlined “Donald Trump’s Presidential Immunity Appeal Meets Judges’ Skepticism; Former president hears his lawyers’ courtroom arguments, then warns of ‘bedlam’ if he loses.”

Bart Jansen, Aysha Bagchi, and David Jackson of USA Today have an article headlined “Trump could order SEAL Team 6 to kill rivals and avoid prosecution if not impeached, lawyer says; Federal courts hadn’t ruled specifically on whether a former president can be charged because he is the first to face criminal indictment for his actions in office.”

Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “Appellate judges air doubts about Trump’s claim of sweeping immunity.”

Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Trump’s immunity claim gets frosty reception at appeals court; With Trump looking on, three judges grilled his lawyer on his claim that he cannot be prosecuted for subverting the 2020 election.”

Ryan Knappenberger of Courthouse News Service reports that “DC Circuit skeptical Trump’s presidential immunity claim can stand; The three-judge panel was concerned that accepting Trump’s argument could block prosecution of future presidents even if they committed egregious crimes, like ordering the assassination of political rivals.”

And at his “Sidebars” Substack site, Randall Eliason has a post titled “D.C. Circuit Skeptical of Trump’s Immunity Claims; Judges highlight the extreme consequences of Trump’s argument.”