“Medication abortions can’t be ‘reversed.’ A law forcing doctors to say they can be is headed to court.” Kayla Epstein of The Washington Post has this report.

“Teenager Accused of Rape Deserves Leniency Because He’s From a ‘Good Family,’ Judge Says; The family court judge also said the victim should have been told that pressing charges would destroy the accused’s life”: Luis Ferré-Sadurní will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

You can access last month’s per curiam, unpublished ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, at this link.

“In the shadows: Supreme Court’s offstage moves may matter more; Sometimes, the Supreme Court decisions that don’t make headlines may wind up having more significance.” Henry Gass of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“How John Roberts controls the Supreme Court”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Justice Ginsburg at Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed her life, work and focus on gender equality with two of her former law clerks, followed by a panel discussion on Justice Ginsburg’s jurisprudence.” C-SPAN has posted online at this link the video of this event from earlier this evening.

“Trump Administration Drops Effort to Add Citizenship Question to 2020 Census”: Michael Wines of The New York Times has an article that begins, “The Trump administration said Tuesday that it would be printing forms for the 2020 census without a question asking about citizenship, abandoning its quest to add the query after being blocked last week by the Supreme Court.”

“The Supreme Court tries to stay above the political fray”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Why did the Supreme Court take on Bridgegate?” Ted Sherman of NJ Advance Media has an article that begins, “The chances seemed almost nil the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case.”

“The Supreme Court Might Have Three Swing Justices Now”: Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux of FiveThirtyEight has this report.

“Ginsburg Passing The Liberal Torch: Takeaways From A Big Supreme Court Term.” Nina Totenberg of NPR has this report.

“More than 200 companies tell Supreme Court to apply job discrimination laws to sexual orientation, gender identity”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“How UVA Law Fared at the Supreme Court This Term; Faculty, Clinics Notch Successes, Influence Jurisprudence”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“Dunleavy vetoes $335,000 from Alaska judiciary budget over court’s abortion decisions”: Madeline McGee of The Anchorage Daily News has an article that begins, “After years of unsuccessful attempts by Alaska legislators to defund ‘elective’ abortions, the governor on Friday vetoed nearly $335,000 from the judiciary’s budget over its rulings on the issue.”

“Before RBG, a Cleveland judge made history; it’s time to recognize Unstoppable Florence Allen”: Columnist Andrea Simakis of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this essay.

“Gerrymandering Is an American Political Tradition; The Supreme Court was right not to strike down the practice, as distasteful as it is”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Online at The Washington Post, columnist Charles Lane has an essay titled “Progressives should be glad they lost the Supreme Court gerrymandering case.”

Online at The Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch has an essay titled “The Gerrymandering Ruling Was Bad, but the Alternatives Were Worse; Highly partisan redistricting is a scourge, but the solutions involve political judgments that no court should make.”

And in last Friday’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” had an op-ed titled “The Gerrymandering Decision Drags the Supreme Court Further Into the Mud; Ignoring the racial redistricting problem won’t make it go away.”