“Brett Kavanaugh brings pizza to the Supreme Court and it is not good; Just call him the ‘pizza justice’; No really, he doesn’t mind”: Clyde McGrady of Roll Call has this report.

“Supreme Overreaching: The Justices Should Return Gun Control, Affirmative Action, and Abortion to the States.” Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Virginia Approves the E.R.A., Becoming the 38th State to Back It; Virginia’s move is symbolic, and crosses the threshold of three-quarters of states needed for ratification; Yet the fate of the E.R.A. is far from decided”: Timothy Williams of The New York Times has this report.

Gregory S. Schneider, Laura Vozzella, and Patricia Sullivan of The Washington Post have an article headlined “‘A long time to wait’: Virginia passes Equal Rights Amendment in historic vote.” And Patricia Sullivan of The Washington Post has an article headlined “‘At last, at last’: Women who fought for ERA for decades exult at Virginia vote.”

Jon Kamp and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Virginia Votes to Ratify ERA, Setting Up Likely Legal Battle; Court ruling or congressional action likely needed to override 1982 deadline.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Virginia House, Senate vote to ratify ERA to U.S. Constitution; U.S. Justice Dept., however, says amendment’s deadline expired years ago.”

At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Keith E. Whittington has a post titled “ERA Now?”

And at the “Balkinization” blog, Gerard N. Magliocca has a post titled “The OLC’s Mistaken Analysis of the ERA.”

“The courts don’t even try to settle fights about war powers anymore; The White House keeps claiming unilateral powers, and no one steps in to examine the arguments”: Law professor Steve Vladeck has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Trump’s Impeachment Trial a Perilous Duty for Chief Justice; Chief Justice John Roberts’s role at an impeachment trial may be mostly ceremonial, but signs of partisanship could damage the Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Democratic Presidential Candidates Need to Start Talking About the Supreme Court”: Jeffrey Toobin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“How Will the Senate Get Away With Its Sham Trial Now? As more evidence pours out, Mitch McConnell’s position becomes increasingly untenable.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Supreme Court takes up a deeply fraught case about state funding of religious schools; The fight over public subsidies for religious schools, explained”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Trump administration’s plans to resume federal executions debated at appeals court”: Mark Berman and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judges Scrutinize Federal Death Penalty Law in Condemned Inmates’ Challenge; Fate of federal prisoners on death row may hinge on the definition of a single word in the Federal Death Penalty Act: ‘manner.’”

Kristine Phillips of USA Today reports that “DOJ says it has authority to carry out federal executions regardless of state rules.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Court wrestles with muddled law on federal execution process; The arguments Wednesday seemed to split the three judges along ideological lines.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Appeals court appears wary of letting Trump reinstate death sentences.”

Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law reports that “Trump-Appointed Judges Appear to Side with Federal Execution Bid” (subscription may be required for full access).

And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “DC Circuit Digs Into Resumption of Federal Death Penalty.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“In Age Bias Case, Justices Discuss ‘O.K. Boomer’ and Eggless Cakes; A lively Supreme Court argument on protecting federal workers from age discrimination included telling remarks from several justices”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “The chief justice wanted to know: Is ‘OK boomer’ ageist? (He may have been asking for a friend.)”

Savannah Behrmann of USA Today has an article headlined “‘OK, boomer’: Chief Justice John Roberts asks if phrase counts as age discrimination.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “‘OK, Boomer’ makes a Supreme Court appearance in age case.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “‘OK Boomer’ makes it to the Supreme Court.”

J. Edward Moreno of The Hill reports that “Chief Justice Roberts references ‘OK, boomer’ in age discrimination case.”

Josephine Harvey of HuffPost has a report headlined “Welcome To 2020: ‘OK Boomer’ Is Being Thrown Around At The Supreme Court; Chief Justice John Roberts casually cited the retort during argument in an age discrimination case.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service has a report headlined “‘OK, Boomer’: Meme Gets Air Time in High Court Case.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Chief Justice Roberts: Is ‘OK, Boomer’ Evidence Of Age Discrimination?”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘OK, boomer.’”

And Paul Blest of Vice News has a report headlined “It’s Official: The Supreme Court Just Killed the ‘OK, Boomer’ Meme; Chief Justice John Roberts dropped a tentative ‘OK, Boomer’ during arguments in a case about age discrimination.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882.

“Jeff Brandes bill, citing Markel murder case, could allow grandparents more visitation rights”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

Majority on divided Fifth Circuit panel doesn’t care about your pronouns: Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan today issued this majority opinion on behalf of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

And Circuit Judge James L. Dennis issued a dissenting opinion.

In news coverage of the ruling, Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade reports that “Trump-appointed judge rebuffs trans inmate on preferred pronouns.”

“Justice Ming Chin to retire from California Supreme Court, giving Newsom his first appointment”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Conservative California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin to retire.”

And the California Courts Newsroom today issued a news release titled “Justice Ming Chin to Retire from California Supreme Court.”

“Why the Court should grant the petitions in the ACA case despite the absence of any injunction”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A Trump tweet revealed the absurdity of the legal case against Obamacare; Even Trump’s having trouble getting his head around the Trump administration’s legal arguments.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a post titled “President Trump Rejects Premise of Justice Department Briefs in ACA Case; Once again, the President’s Twitter feed contradicts the claims of his lawyers.”

“The Right to Move Freely: How we lost it, and why it matters.” Kia Rahnama has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Can Trump Actually Stop the Senate From Hearing From Witnesses? In a word, no.” Law professor Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr. has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Senators to practice rules of decorum during impeachment proceedings”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“John Roberts won’t save the country from Trump”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“The Plot to Level the Administrative State: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority could use an obscure legal doctrine to permanently kneecap the ability of progressives to govern.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“Trump Bench: Amy Coney Barrett; Meet Trump’s favored pick for the next Supreme Court opening.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.