“The Women the Abortion War Leaves Out”: Law professor Michelle Oberman has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Are bag bans legal? Texas Supreme Court will decide.” Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

And Paul Cobler of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas Supreme Court hears oral arguments in plastic bag ban case.”

“U.S. Supreme Court denies petition of man convicted of pushing his wife off cliff to her death in Rocky Mountain National Park; Harold Henthorn, convicted of murder in 2015, is serving a life sentence”: Kieran Nicholson of The Denver Post has this report.

“Justices of the Virginia Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned an appeal from Franklin County man convicted of violating Virginia’s anti-noose law”: Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report.

And Neil Harvey of The Roanoke Times reports that “State Supreme Court hears arguments in Franklin County noose case.”

“Case Law”: Law professor Adam Steinman has posted this interesting article on SSRN.

“Husted v. Philip Randolph Institute: Ohio’s legal justification for its massive voter purge is complete gobbledygook.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“University Tax Flunks the First Amendment Test: The levy on investment income overwhelmingly targets liberal institutions; The key to overturning it will be convincing the courts.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Louis Vuitton spared from fee-shifting in ‘obvious’ parody case; appeal expected”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Post-Katrina Legal Storm Was Trump Nominee Engelhardt’s ‘Odyssey'”: Patrick L. Gregory of Bloomberg BNA has this report.

“Amicus Brief Cites Ferris Bueller to Great Effect”: Kevin Underhill has this post at his blog, “Lowering the Bar.”

“Full-court press: Donald Trump’s judicial appointments may prove his most enduring legacy; Everything else could in theory be reversed; His effect on the law will be profound.” The Economist magazine has this report.

“Deferring Democracy: What the DACA Ruling Means.” Mark Pulliam has this essay online at American Greatness.

“Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy”: Law professors Joshua A. Douglas and Michael E. Solimine have posted this article on SSRN.

“Searching for Scalia in 2018: Measuring the ‘Scalia-Ness’ of President Trump’s Supreme Court Shortlist”: Law professor Jeremy Kidd and Ryan D. Walters have posted this fully revised paper on SSRN.

“Another Undocumented Teen Says The Trump Administration Is Blocking Her From Getting An Abortion”: Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Prominent Supreme Court Lawyer Jumps From Kirkland & Ellis To Quinn Emanuel; The latest notable hire by the ever-expanding Quinn Emanuel — and probably not a move motivated by money”: David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

“Judge Alsup’s ‘Flawed Legal Premise'”: Josh Blackman has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections”: The Federalist Society has posted online this paper by professor Chris W. Bonneau.

“Texas’s More Honest Take On Garza v. Hargan”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

“Symposium at UVA Law to Explore Legal Legacy of Loving; Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky To Deliver Keynote”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“The State of Play on Partisan Gerrymandering Cases at the Supreme Court”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“How an obscure SCOTUS employment ruling put the brakes on DACA rollback”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Supreme Court Weighs Purge of Ohio Voting Rolls”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court seems skeptical of blocking Ohio law that removes voters from rolls.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices appear divided over Ohio rule to remove people from rolls who don’t vote.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “The right to vote — or not vote — divides Supreme Court.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Ohio’s Trimming of Voter Rolls; Justices divided over the state’s method of disqualifying citizens from voting.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court debates deletion of names off Ohio’s voter rolls; Activists argue state pulling trigger too fast.”

In today’s edition of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, Jack Torry and Jessica Wehrman have a front page article headlined “Justices appear split on Ohio voter-purge case.”

Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs legality of Ohio’s voter removal procedure.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court appears sympathetic to Ohio voter purge effort.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Divided Supreme Court may allow Ohio voter purge policy.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Voter-Purge Efforts Get Support at U.S. High Court Session.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court struggles with Ohio voter roll case.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Justices Appear Likely To Uphold Ohio’s System For Removing Voters From The Rolls.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Ohio’s ‘Use-It Or Lose-It’ Voter Registration Rule.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980.