In the realm of law and order, the How Appealing blog remains a pivotal cornerstone, offering insights into appellate litigation with its unique weekly roundup. This week’s selection dives into several provocative issues ranging from self-defense insurance to the political maneuvers of the Trump administration.

First up, Rachel Monroe's intriguing piece in The New Yorker titled “Your First Call After You Shoot Someone” discusses the growing popularity of self-defense insurance in the era of Stand Your Ground laws. Monroe raises a critical question: does the availability of such insurance encourage gun violence? Her exploration into this controversial area provides a thought-provoking analysis of modern self-defense narratives and their implications on society.

From the perspective of media and politics, Aziz Huq, a law professor, suggests in Politico Magazine that Jimmy Kimmel could potentially sue the Trump administration. The article titled “Jimmy Kimmel Has Supreme Court Precedent on His Side” argues that Kimmel’s case could be bolstered by Supreme Court precedents protecting freedom of speech, offering an interesting angle on how legal protections play out in high-profile disputes.

Amidst ongoing political debates, Maureen Groppe of USA Today examines whether the Supreme Court will treat Trump’s tariffs with the same scrutiny it has applied to major policy shifts during the Biden administration. Her report, “Will the Supreme Court treat Trump’s tariffs like Biden’s policies?”, delves into the complexities of governmental authority and legislative power, questioning consistency in judicial decisions.

In a more critical tone, G.S. Hans reviews a book by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in an essay published on Balls and Strikes. The review, titled “Book Review: The Simple Stories of Amy Coney Barrett,” accuses the justice of underestimating the public’s access to information, spotlighting the interaction between public figures and the media.

Stephen L. Carter, another esteemed law professor, discusses the limits of governmental power over public discourse in his Bloomberg Opinion piece “Presidents Can’t Sue Their Way Out of Criticism.” Carter’s essay is a firm reminder of the enduring principles of free speech, especially in critiquing government actions, amidst ongoing legal battles involving former President Donald Trump.

Lastly, Cristian Farias' essay in The New Yorker titled “The U.S. Government’s Extraordinary Pursuit of Kilmar Ábrego García” outlines what he describes as a political prosecution under the Trump administration. This narrative adds yet another layer to the ongoing discussion about the intersection of law, politics, and individual rights.

Each article selected in this week’s How Appealing roundup not only shines a light on the current legal battles and theories but also stimulates deeper thought about the principles that govern our society. For more detailed discussions and articles, visit the How Appealing blog.