In the realm of law and justice, this week has brought a plethora of thought-provoking developments and insightful predictions that are shaping the landscape of appellate litigation. From Supreme Court decisions to ideological shifts among justices, here's your weekly digest of notable legal happenings from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog.

Adam Liptak of The New York Times delves into a pivotal Supreme Court ruling that denied President Trump the authority to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois under an obscure law. This decision, according to Liptak, might have inadvertently encouraged the former president to contemplate invoking the Insurrection Act with broader powers. The full analysis provides a deep dive into the implications of this ruling and its potential impact on presidential powers.

On another front, the social media platform X is buzzing with discussions about Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as reported by Jay Willis at his “Balls & Strikes” Substack site. Once celebrated by conservatives for her stance on transgender issues, Barrett is now facing backlash from the same groups, who accuse her of abandoning 'biological truth.' This shift highlights the volatile nature of ideological allegiances in today’s political climate.

David Lat, writing for his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack, presents seven bold predictions for the legal world in 2026. Among these are potential retirements from the Supreme Court, skyrocketing law firm profits, and high-profile legal battles involving former President Trump. Lat’s forecasts suggest a dynamic year ahead for the legal profession, filled with significant changes and challenges.

In a notable Supreme Court ruling, as covered by Justin Jouvenal and Patrick Marley of The Washington Post, Illinois Congressman Michael Bost has been granted standing to challenge mail-in balloting practices. The court’s decision, which resulted in a 7-2 vote, focuses narrowly on the issue of legal standing and sets a precedent for future electoral litigation.

Pam Belluck of The New York Times reports on a contentious interstate legal battle involving California Governor Newsom’s decision not to extradite an abortion provider to Louisiana. This case marks the second instance of Louisiana criminally charging out-of-state doctors for sending abortion pills to its residents, escalating the national debate over abortion rights post-Roe v. Wade.

Lastly, an opinion piece by law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Burt Neuborne advocates for the rights of Renee Good’s family to sue the officer responsible for her death. Published in The New York Times, their argument centers on constitutional rights and civil liberties, highlighting the ongoing issues surrounding police accountability.

For more in-depth analysis and coverage of these stories, visit Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog. Stay informed with the latest developments in the legal world that continue to shape the societal and judicial landscapes.