In the latest edition of "How Appealing Weekly Roundup," a treasure trove of appellate litigation news awaits those keen on the judicial currents shaping America. The roundup, which pulls stories from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, highlights significant recent judicial decisions and ongoing legal battles that are defining the landscape of U.S. law.

To start, the Supreme Court finds itself under scrutiny with a shadow docket ruling that has sparked outrage and accusations of transphobia. Jay Willis, writing for his "Balls & Strikes" Substack, critiques the conservative supermajority's decision, which he believes overtly favors the ex-president while disparaging transgender rights.

In economic realms, the Supreme Court is also grappling with the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Trump. An editorial from The Wall Street Journal questions the government's justification of these emergency border taxes, suggesting that they may not withstand 'major questions' scrutiny—a legal doctrine requiring clear congressional authorization for significant policy actions.

The conversation shifts from economics to ethics with Emily Bazelon and David French discussing potential new divisions within the Supreme Court in a piece for The New York Times. Their dialogue delves into how ideological and procedural differences among the justices might influence future rulings.

Meanwhile, the legal saga surrounding Donald Trump continues as a New York federal judge considers whether Trump’s hush-money conviction should be moved to federal court, given his claim of immunity for actions taken while in office. Jonah E. Bromwich provides a detailed account of this development in The New York Times, highlighting the intricate dance between state and federal jurisdictions.

On a different note, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Texas can enforce a ban on sexually explicit drag shows. Alex Nguyen of The Texas Tribune reports on the decision, which clarifies that not all drag shows fall under the ban, stirring a complex debate about freedom of expression and community standards.

Lastly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has made headlines with its decision concerning a school pronoun policy in Ohio. Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service explores the 10-to-7 en banc ruling which posits that prohibiting students from using biological pronouns to refer to their transgender classmates likely violates the First Amendment.

For those interested in the intricate push and pull of appellate courts, these stories offer a glimpse into the complex judicial processes that continue to shape the nation's legal framework. Dive deeper into these legal narratives by visiting Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog for comprehensive analysis and updates.