“The strategic discretion of John Roberts”: Columnist Hugh Hewitt has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Kim Reynolds names appeals court judge Christopher McDonald to Iowa Supreme Court”: Stephen Gruber-Miller of The Des Moines Register has this report.

And Erin Murphy of The Quad-City Times reports that “First minority member named to Iowa Supreme Court.”

“The Supreme Court Just Struck a Huge, Unanimous Blow Against Policing for Profit”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Florida Student, 11, Arrested After Dispute Over His Refusal to Say Pledge of Allegiance”: Christine Hauser and Matthew Haag of The New York Times have this report.

“Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court says constitutional ban on ‘excessive fines’ also applies to states.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules Against Excessive State Fines; The ruling potentially jeopardizes asset-forfeiture programs that help fund police programs.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes blow against states that raise revenue by hefty fines, forfeitures.”

Tim Evans of The Indianapolis Star has an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court: Range Rover seizure violated protections against excessive fines.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Constitutional ban on high fines applies to states.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on ‘excessive fines.’”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Curbs State Power to Levy Fines, Seize Property.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Limiting excessive fines, Supreme Court rules against seizing a drug seller’s luxury SUV; The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose Land Rover was taken away after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin to undercover officers.”

Ariane de Vogue and Sophie Tatum of CNN report that “Ginsburg delivers first opinion since cancer surgery in excessive fines case.”

And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court clamps down on ‘excessive fines’ by states.”

“Supreme Court won’t head off former Rep. Schock’s trial”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“Trump shouldn’t be forcing Republicans to choose fidelity to him or to the Constitution”: Columnist Marc A. Thiessen has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“‘Enjoy your life’: Trump puts new attorney general in an awkward position from the start.” Philip Rucker and Matt Zapotosky have this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“#212: Tweeting Judges & Access to Justice, with Judge Stephen Dillard.” Today’s new installment of the Lawyerist Podcast can be accessed via this link.

All about Chadha: Soon, I’ll be escaping from the snowy northeast to visit St. Augustine, Florida, a place that’s famous for (among other things) Minorcan clam chowder (I’m looking forward to having some at O’Steen’s). But this post isn’t about chowder; rather, it’s about INS v. Chada.

The New York Sun has posted online an editorial titled “The Constitutional Emergency.”

And at the “Lawfare” blog, Richard H. Pildes has a post titled “The Supreme Court’s Contribution to the Confrontation Over Emergency Powers.”

“Justice Ginsburg Appears Strong In First Appearance At Supreme Court This Year”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg.”

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in two argued cases.

1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Dawson v. Steager, No. 17-419. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091. Justice Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“‘Over My Dead Body’: The No. 1 Apple iTunes podcast focuses on Dan Markel murder case.” Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“Supreme Court ruling means more information on mystery Mueller grand jury case may become public”: Ariane de Vogue and Katelyn Polantz of CNN have this report.

“As Ruth Bader Ginsburg Returns, Supreme Court Acts on Death Penalty and Pollution Cases”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide if Clean Water Act limits Hawaii’s underground wastewater dumping.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court, With Ginsburg Back, Agrees to Hear Clean-Water Case, Blocks Texas Execution; Hawaii environmental case will give the justices a chance to clarify the extent to which the federal Clean Water Act applies to localized pollution.”

Ledyard King and Richard Wolf of USA Today report that “Supreme Court will consider letting groundwater pollution escape regulation under Clean Water Act.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court takes case that could limit water pollution law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Will Consider Limiting Scope of Clean Water Act.”

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “SCOTUS will hear clean water case next term.”

“Roberts again sides with liberal Supreme Court justices in disagreeing with lower court interpretations”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Divided Supreme Court blocks Texas from executing intellectually disabled man, citing ‘lay stereotypes.’”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court prevents Texas from executing intellectually disabled man.”

Keri Blakinger of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court sides with intellectually disabled Harris County death row inmate for second time.”

Juan A. Lozano of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules out death penalty for Texas inmate.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court bars Texas from executing death row inmate.”

And Jolie McCullough of The Texas Tribune reports that “For the second time, U.S. Supreme Court reverses death sentence decision for Texas inmate Bobby Moore; This time, the majority of the justices said Moore has shown he is intellectually disabled.”

“California’s Lawsuit Against Trump’s Emergency Wall Is Written to Appeal to Neil Gorsuch”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Clarence Thomas Just Joined Donald Trump’s Crusade to ‘Open Up’ Libel Laws”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“When Police Use Too Much Force: In cases where there is a question, courts should be asking for more facts, not fewer.” Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued earlier this month.

“Clarence Thomas Attacks the Press, Contradicting . . . Clarence Thomas; His opinion calling to roll back a key libel law isn’t really about originalism; Just read his earlier rulings”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg back on bench as Supreme Court resumes hearings”: Robert Barnes and Mark Berman of The Washington Post have this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court bench two months after surgery for lung cancer.”

Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press report that “Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court bench in public session.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Ginsburg gets back to business in return to U.S. Supreme Court.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Ginsburg Is Active Questioner in First Argument Since Surgery.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Justice Ginsburg returns to the Supreme Court after surgery; The 85-year-old justice, who had a portion of one of her lungs removed after cancer was found, asked the first question in a case.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court for oral arguments.”

And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Ginsburg smiles, speaks in clear voice in return to Supreme Court bench.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service, No. 17-1594.

“Justice Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justice Thomas calls for reexamining landmark libel decision in case involving Cosby accuser.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear defamation lawsuit against Bill Cosby by one of his accusers.”

Laura McCrystal of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article headlined “How Clarence Thomas used Bill Cosby to call for a reexamination of libel laws.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs defamation suit against Cosby.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Justice Clarence Thomas criticizes landmark Supreme Court press freedom ruling; The conservative jurist targeted the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case that set a standard for libel suits by public figures.”

Tammy Kupperman and Sophie Tatum of CNN report that “Justice Clarence Thomas calls for reconsideration of landmark libel case.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner had a post titled “Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsidering Libel Standards As Supreme Court Rejects Cosby Case.”

“Chief Justice Roberts tells right-wing judges to slow their roll; The conservative Chief isn’t going to let Trumpy judges tear everything up at once”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at ThinkProgress.

“Tato and Tuto”: The fourth installment of the “Over My Dead Body” podcast focusing on the murder of law professor Dan Markel was posted online today, and you can access it via this link.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Back At The Supreme Court; The justice is attending Tuesday’s arguments — the first time since having surgery for lung cancer in December”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case.

The Court issued a per curiam decision in Moore v. Texas, No. 18-443. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch joined.

In Schock v. United States, No. 18-406, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.

And in McKee v. Cosby, No. No. 17-1542, Justice Thomas issued a concurrence in the denial of certiorari.

“Kim Reynolds won’t appeal ruling striking down ‘fetal heartbeat’ law”: Stephen Gruber-Miller and Barbara Rodriguez of The Des Moines Register have this report.

And David Pitt of The Associated Press reports that “Iowa governor opts not to appeal fetal heartbeat law ruling.”

“Embarrassment of snitches: Eight legal figures leaked to police, royal commission told.” Tammy Mills and Chris Vedelago of The Age of Melbourne, Australia have an article that begins, “A court clerk, a legal secretary, a legal adviser and a gunned-down Mafia lawyer are among the seven people who have been referred to the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants in addition to Informer 3838.”

And Sarah Farnsworth of Australia’s ABC News reports that “Informer 3838 royal commission hears murdered lawyer was also police informer.”

“Georgia high court strikes down part of DUI law”: Joshua Sharpe of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to DUI prosecutions, saying a driver’s refusal to have their breath tested for alcohol cannot be used against them at trial.”

And Ellen Eldridge of Georgia Public Broadcasting reports that “Georgia Supreme Court Says Refusing Breath Test Isn’t Evidence Of DUI.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia — grounded entirely on that state’s own constitution — at this link.

“Abortion opponents in Alabama aim for outright ban”: Mike Cason of Alabama Media Group has an article that begins, “Anti-abortion advocates in Alabama are changing their approach from trying to restrict abortion through regulatory bills to a push for an outright ban.”

“Court rules Florida ‘disenfranchised’ voters by rejecting mail-in ballots for signature mismatches”: Dara Kam of the News Service of Florida has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued Friday.

“Lawmakers Seek to Keep State Supreme Court in Check”: Steven Allen Adams of The Sunday News-Register of Wheeling, West Virginia has an article that begins, “The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, under new management, is working to put rules and policies in place to fight the perceptions of corruption that plagued justices over the last year.”

“William Baude, SB’04: Questions for the College alumnus and Law School professor.” This interview (which also includes a wonderful illustration of the interview’s subject) appears in the Winter 2019 issue of The University of Chicago Magazine.

Happily, the interview does not seek to supplant this blog’s definitive guide for pronouncing Will’s last name during a U.S. Supreme Court oral argument (or elsewhere).

“When Does Kicking Black People Off Juries Cross a Constitutional Line?” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.