“What It Feels Like When a Federal Court Gives a Professor the Right to Misgender You: An interview with ‘Jane Doe.'” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence interview online at Slate.

“Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ohio’s Down Syndrome Abortion Law; Ohio law prohibits doctors from performing an abortion once a patient reveals she is motivated by fears the fetus has Down syndrome”: Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

John Caniglia of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Divided federal appeals court upholds Ohio law banning Down syndrome abortions.”

Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that “Appeals court upholds Ohio’s Down syndrome abortion law in case with Supreme Court implications.”

Olafimihan Oshin of The Hill reports that “Appeals court lifts hold on Ohio law preventing abortions based on Down syndrome diagnosis.”

And Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Divided Sixth Circuit Lets Ohio Ban Abortions Based on Down Syndrome Diagnosis; An en banc appeals court divided on party lines ruled Ohio’s ban on abortions in cases where a Down syndrome diagnosis has been made does not impose a substantial burden on women seeking the procedure.”

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Sixth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“California lifts capacity limits on places of worship”: Leila Miller of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And Bianca Bruno of Courthouse News Service reports that “California Lifts Covid Capacity Limits on Places of Worship; Citing ‘recent judicial rulings’ — namely a weekend order by the U.S. Supreme Court — California public health officials uncapped Covid limits on churches, mosques and synagogues.”

“Justice Thomas and the Public/Private Rights Distinction”: Jennifer B. Dickey has this post at the “Chamber Litigation Blog” of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

“Top private law firms plan ‘SWAT teams’ to fight voting restrictions in court; The effort involves 16 firms as the legal community joins corporate American in criticizing GOP-led restrictions”: Jane C. Timm of NBC News has this report.

“SCOTUS decision on at-home worship wisely supported religious liberty”: Robert Dunn has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Whether the Fourteenth Amendment bars States from prohibiting abortions that are sought solely because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.” That is the question presented in a petition for writ of certiorari that the State of Arkansas had docketed today in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Analyzing the Alston Oral Arguments through a Citations-Focused Perspective (Part 1)”: Sam Ehrlich has this post at The Juris Lab.

“Some in power are still mad that Pa.’s Supreme Court ruled on election law. Here’s why it matters now.” Sam Dunklau of NPR affiliate WITF in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

“The Supreme Court Does Not Deserve Our Trust”: Jamison Foser has this essay online at Crooked.

“This Supreme Court Isn’t Going to Like Vaccine Passports; Governors should avoid a fight they’re likely to lose”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court conservatives may reset balance between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Is Designed to Fail; Biden’s recently announced commission to study court reform isn’t designed to offer solutions — it’s designed to be an excuse to do nothing”: Elie Mystal has this essay online at The Nation.

“How a Cheerleader’s Snapchat Profanity Could Shape the Limits of Students’ Free Speech”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report (subscription may be required for full access).

“Judges cite Holocaust, eugenics in divided ruling allowing Ohio to enforce Down Syndrome abortion ban”: Jessie Balmert of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “US court lifts hold on Ohio’s Down syndrome abortion law.”

Today’s 111-page en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit consists of what is a majority opinion in large measure, three concurring opinions, one opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, and six dissenting opinions.

“Dominion v. MyPillow Guy poses a stark test for America’s libel laws”: Roger Parloff has this essay online at yahoo! finance.

“Kraft Heinz ‘Mayochup’ dispute revived by U.S. appeals court”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

And Frank Miles of FOXBusiness reports that “Kraft Heinz ‘Mayochup’ dispute revived by US appeals court; Louisana inventor of ‘Metchup’ may get consideration on his trademark.”

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

And in earlier related coverage, John Simerman of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans last month had an article headlined “Why Kylie Jenner of the Kardashians and this New Orleans family are in a legal tussle.”

“Is there anything materially deceptive or misleading about a debt collection letter that accurately itemizes a debt as including ‘$0.00’ in interest and fees when the debt cannot accrue interest and fees? To ask the question is essentially to answer it.” So begins a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday in a case involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

“Family, friends of Dan Markel again pursuing changes to grandparent visitation in Florida”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat recently had this report.

“Court: Florida prisoner can seek punitive damages.” Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida has this report on an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued Friday.

The en banc majority opinion is notable because it was jointly written by Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. and Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin, who often find themselves on opposite ends of the spectrum when prisoner rights are at issue. And Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote a dissenting opinion that is also worth a read.

“Biden’s SCOTUS Commission Apparently Lacks Authority To Make Recommendations And Is (Way) Too Large”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

And at The Dispatch, Ilya Shapiro has a post titled “Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Is Large and Progressive. And Mostly Pointless. Many of the proposals being discussed boil down to rearranging deck chairs on the ship of state.”