“‘Constitutional Nonsense’: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Defies Legal Consensus; The president’s legal case would negate any need for witnesses; But constitutional scholars say that it’s wrong.” Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“We met as doctor and patient, but a life-saving abortion was the start of our friendship; Patients can’t fight for their rights in court if they’re fighting for their lives; Doctors must be able to advocate for them every step of the way”: Stephanie Goodell and Nisha Verma have this essay online at USA Today.

“Religious-schools case heads to a Supreme Court skeptical of stark lines between church and state”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“Standing Cheese”: You can access at this link today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast featuring law professor Melissa Murray, Jaime Santos, and law professors Kate Shaw and Leah Litman.

“Roberts under pressure from both sides in witness fight”: Alexander Bolton of The Hill has this report.

And online at Politico Magazine, law professor Richard Primus has an essay titled “John Roberts Finally Gets His Day as Umpire; In a high-level drama with very few surprises, the newest character could also be the most consequential — and also the hardest to predict.”

“Supreme Court to review two Trump-related cases; Electoral College, health care on docket”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“Decades-old Apalachicola Basin water dispute between Georgia and Florida heads to Supreme Court”: Jayla Whitfield of Fox News has this report.

“Can a baby be abused in the womb? Colorado Supreme Court weighs a nuanced case; The high court’s decision could have a broad impact on the debate over the personhood of a fetus.” Shelly Bradbury has this front page article in today’s edition of The Denver Post.

“10 years after landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision, record cash flooding US elections; Watchdogs say case gave rise to Super PACs’ sweeping impact on US elections”: Devin Dwyer of ABC News has this report.

“Pre-Trial Hearings Set To Begin In Case Against Sept. 11 Terrorists”: Sacha Pfeiffer had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“The Next Abortion Warriors: Meet the two lawyers who are preparing to argue the first abortion case to come before the Supreme Court since Brett Kavanaugh came aboard.” Laura Lane has this item in the Talk of the Town section of the January 27, 2020 issue of The New Yorker.

“Supreme Court religious rights case has big implications for U.S. schools”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Dershowitz distances himself from White House response to Democrats’ impeachment charges”: Felicia Sonmez and Mike DeBonis of The Washington Post have this report.

And online at The Washington Post, law professor Laurence H. Tribe has an essay titled “Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus legal arguments on impeachment.”

“Impeachment Trial Puts Susan Collins, Stung by Kavanaugh Backlash, Under Scrutiny; The four-term Maine senator, who crossed party lines to vote against President Clinton’s impeachment, must now decide whether to break with President Trump”: Jennifer Steinhauer has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Why Trump had to hire this legal odd couple”: George T. Conway III has this essay online at The Washington Post.

Also online at that newspaper, columnist Harry Litman has an essay titled “Dershowitz and Starr may bring a slightly more reality-based Trump defense.”

“Roberts’ Role in Impeachment Trial Debated”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Court portrait of writer of notorious slave ruling reviewed”: Martha Waggoner of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “In North Carolina’s Supreme Court chamber, above the seat held by the second African American chief justice, hangs a towering painting of a 19th century slave owner and jurist who authored a notorious opinion about the ‘absolute’ rights of slaveholders over the enslaved.”

“US Supreme Court case puts eyes of education world on Montana”: Phil Drake has this front page article in today’s edition of The Great Falls Tribune.

In today’s edition of The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Gail Schontzler has a front page article headlined “Constitutional showdown: Montana school choice case heads to U.S. Supreme Court.”

And Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices taking up bans on state money to religious schools.”

“Changes ahead for R.I.’s aging Supreme Court? As the state’s justices age, one avid court-watcher foresees ‘dramatic changes’ in its makeup.” Katie Mulvaney has this front page article in today’s edition of The Providence Journal.

“Courthouse News Partially Wins Suit Against California County”: Blake Brittain of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Friday.

“Youth climate change suit against government dismissed by divided federal appeals court”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Court — with regrets — knocks down youths’ lawsuit on climate change.”

In yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, John Schwartz had an article headlined “Court Quashes Youth Climate Change Case Against Government.”

Brady Dennis of The Washington Post reports that “Federal appeals court tosses landmark youth climate lawsuit against U.S. government; 21 young people sued in 2015, hoping to force an end to fossil fuel-friendly U.S. policies.”

Gillian Flaccus of The Associated Press reports that “US court dismisses suit by youths over climate change.”

Sebastien Malo and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters have a report headlined “Children, young adults cannot sue U.S. government over climate change: ruling.”

Chris D’Angelo of HuffPost reports that “Court Tosses Landmark Youth Climate Change Lawsuit; The lawsuit from 21 children and young adults argued that the federal government has failed to act to address global climate change.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Appeals court tosses kids’ climate change lawsuit.”

Umair Irfan of Vox reports that “21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate.”

Jennifer Hijazi of Greenwire reports that “Appeals court halts historic kids’ climate case.”

Karina Brown of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Tosses Youth Climate Change Suit Against Feds.”

And on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday,” Nathan Rott had an audio segment titled “Kids’ Climate Case ‘Reluctantly’ Dismissed By Appeals Court.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Starr Chamber: The Sequel; President Trump reaches deep into the perv barrel for his defense team.” Columnist Maureen Dowd will have this op-ed in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“What impeachment watchers are getting wrong about John Roberts’s role”: Law professor Michael J. Gerhardt has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Kate Brown names judge to Oregon Court of Appeals seat she previously awarded her own lawyer without any competition”: Betsy Hammond of The Oregonian has an article that begins, “Gov. Kate Brown has named an experienced writer and litigator to the Oregon Court of Appeals seat that she previously awarded to her own lawyer without considering any other candidates.”

“Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Contraception Coverage; The justices will weigh Trump administration regulations allowing employers to refuse to provide access to birth control on religious or moral grounds”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Review Exemptions to Birth Control Mandate; Justices will hear Trump administration’s appeal of rulings that blocked rules nationwide.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court will tackle dispute over birth control, religious liberty.”

Alex Swoyer and Christopher Vondracek of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court to review Trump’s religious exemptions for contraceptive coverage.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to hear Trump appeal in Obamacare contraception fight.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Gets High Court Review on Contraceptive Coverage Opt-Out.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear case involving religious freedom in Obamacare dispute over birth control; The Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns, fought the contraceptive requirement since it was first imposed.”

Ariane de Vogue and Caroline Kelly of CNN report that “Supreme Court to review Obamacare requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans pay for contraceptives.”

Susannah Luthi of Politico reports that “Supreme Court will again review Obamacare birth control mandate.”

Jessie Hellmann and John Kruzel of The Hill report that “Supreme Court to take up Trump appeal in ObamaCare birth control case.”

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Contraception-Insurance Case Faces New Round at Top Court.”

“The Documentary: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” BBC Sounds has posted this audio segment online.

“The First Test for Chief Justice Roberts? McConnell’s Organizing Resolution for Impeachment.” Margaret Taylor has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“Desperately Smearing Amy Coney Barrett; If you’re looking for an accurate (let alone fair-minded) assessment of judicial records, Slate’s not the place for you”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court will hear Colorado ‘faithless electors’ case; Case stems from an effort to stop Trump from becoming president”: Justin Wingerter has this front page article in today’s edition of The Denver Post.

In today’s edition of The Seattle Times, David Gutman has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court to consider Washington’s 2016 ‘faithless electors,’ who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article headlined “Supreme Court to Hear Timely Case on Electoral College Voters; A handful of rogue electoral votes, if allowed, could tip the next presidential election.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court will hear cases on electoral college, birth control mandate.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court to decide if ‘faithless electors’ can defy a state’s presidential vote and pick another candidate.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Look at Electoral College Rules; High court to consider whether presidential electors can vote for candidate not chosen in state popular vote.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court will hear case that could decide future presidential elections.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to review if presidential electors can deflect in Electoral College.”

Jesse Paul of The Colorado Sun has an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado’s presidential electors case. Here’s why the state thinks it will win. The key question in a case that could affect the entire Electoral College: Do presidential electors have to follow the popular vote?”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices to consider faithless electors, ahead of 2020 vote.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court takes up presidential Electoral College dispute.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “High Court to Rule on ‘Faithless Electors’ in Presidential Vote.”

Pete Williams of NBC News has a report headlined “‘Faithless elector’: Supreme Court will hear case that could change how presidents are chosen; A ruling could come in the spring — just as the 2020 presidential race is heating up.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court to decide if states can force presidential electors to vote for the state’s winner.”

Alex Pappas of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court to hear ‘faithless elector’ case ahead of 2020 presidential election.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘faithless elector’ cases.”

Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices to Decide ‘Faithless Electors’ Case Before 2020 Election.”

Nina Totenberg of NPR reports that “Supreme Court To Hear ‘Faithless Electors’ Case.”

And Bente Birkeland and Hayley Sanchez of Colorado Public Radio News have a report headlined “They Tried To Beat Trump In The Electoral College, Now The Supreme Court Will Hear Their Case.”

“Dust Off the Impeachment Tables, a Senate Trial Is Underway; To make way for a historic impeachment trial, the Senate is undergoing a physical makeover, with custom tables for the prosecutors, cubbies for senators’ phones and quarters for the chief justice”: Michael D. Shear has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

The “quarters for the chief justice” referred to in the headline would appear to be of the Third Amendment, rather than the monetary, variety.

“Chief Justice John Roberts prepares to take the stage for impeachment trial”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Sex, Power and Fury: The Mystery of a Death at Guantánamo Bay; The federal trial of a former commander of the naval base put a spotlight on life at the isolated and secretive outpost best known for its terrorist court and prison.” Carol Rosenberg of The New York Times has this report.

“Remember that $8 billion Risperdal verdict? A Philly judge has drastically slashed it.” Christian Hetrick has this article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Peter Loftus of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judge Slashes Damages in J&J Risperdal Case to $6.8 Million From $8 Billion; J&J had been ordered to pay in suit involving its antipsychotic drug Risperdal.”

And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Judge slashes $8 billion Risperdal award against Johnson & Johnson to $6.8 million.”

“7th Circuit: Birth certificates should list both mothers in same-sex marriages.” Marilyn Odendahl of The Indiana Lawyer has this report.

Peter Hayes of Bloomberg Law reports that “Indiana Must Recognize Children Born Into Same-Sex Marriages” (subscription required for full access).

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “After 32 Month Delay, 7th Circuit Affirms Equal Rights for Same-Sex Parents; The long-awaited decision requires Indiana to list married same-sex parents on their child’s birth certificate.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“U.S. chief justice faces unfamiliar glare of spotlight at Trump trial”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.