“John Roberts lays groundwork for Supreme Court to limit abortion”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Divided Fifth-Circuit Panel Submits Untimely Amicus Brief in Seila Law v. CFPB; Courts of Appeals should resist the urge to opine on cases pending before the Supreme Court”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Roberts Denounces Schumer for Talking About Kavanaugh the Way Kavanaugh Talked About the Senate”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“John Roberts Condemns Schumer for Saying Justices ‘Will Pay the Price’ for ‘Awful Decisions’; Senator Chuck Schumer, speaking while the court heard arguments in a major abortion case, directed his criticism at President Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Colby Itkowitz and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Schumer over comments that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch will ‘pay the price’ for a vote against abortion rights.” And at “The Fix” blog of The Washington Post, Aaron Blake has a post titled “John Roberts’s and Chuck Schumer’s extraordinary war of words; It comes at an extraordinary time in our judicial history.”

Jeanine Santucci of USA Today reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts scolds Chuck Schumer for ‘threatening statements’ against Gorsuch, Kavanaugh.”

Victor Morton of The Washington Times reports that “John Roberts rebukes Schumer for ‘threatening’ Trump-appointed justices.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for ‘threatening’ comments; ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ the senator from New York said of Trump appointees.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts rebukes Chuck Schumer for comments about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.”

Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “Chief Justice Roberts issues rare rebuke to Schumer’s ‘dangerous’ and ‘irresponsible’ comments; Schumer fires back.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts defends Gorsuch, Kavanaugh after Schumer warns they will ‘pay the price.’”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Roberts slams Schumer for ‘dangerous’ rhetoric against justices; The chief justice rebuked the Senate minority leader for saying Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ‘will pay the price’ if they cut back abortion rights.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Roberts criticizes Schumer for ‘dangerous’ remarks on Kavanaugh, Gorsuch.” And Zack Budryk of The Hill reports that “Schumer’s office says he was referencing justices paying ‘political price.’”

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Roberts Rebukes Schumer for Saying Justices Will ‘Pay the Price.’”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Weighs Abortion Case; Schumer Remarks Draw Rebuke From Roberts.”

“Anti-Abortion Advocates Lied So Poorly That John Roberts May Side With the Liberals; June Medical proves that Louisiana’s law isn’t about protecting women’s health”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Should Mend, Not End, Independent Agencies: Here’s how to give presidents just a little more power over the heads of departments like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Fed.” Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Appeals court weighs constitutionality of excluding women from the draft”: Patricia Kime of Military Times has this report.

And Sabrina Canfield of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fifth Circuit Hears Challenge to Men-Only Military Draft.”

Yesterday’s oral argument of this appeal took place at Tulane University School of Law before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Carl E. Stewart and Don R. Willett and Senior Circuit Judge Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. You can access the oral argument audio via this link. The federal government’s lawyer spoke very rapidly at the oral argument. And the lawyer for the National Coalition for Men appears to pronounce “women” the same as “woman,” rather than as a word that rhymes with swimmin‘.

“The en banc court’s previous opinion was vacated by the Supreme Court on a procedural issue concerning the death of the author of the majority opinion.” So stated the syllabus of last Thursday’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rizo v. Yovino, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued while I was away on vacation last week.

When the en banc Ninth Circuit last issued a ruling in this case in April 2018, the outcome depended on the vote of Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who had died before the en banc court’s decision had issued. It appears that Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea (who more recently took senior status) was drawn to replace Reinhardt on the 11-judge en banc panel.

Even though Bea joined with those who disagreed with the result that Reinhardt had reached in the original en banc decision, last week’s en banc decision still reached the same result by a 6-to-5 vote, thanks to the decision of Circuit Judge Paul J. Watford to abandon the views he expressed in an opinion concurring in the judgment that accompanied the 2018 en banc decision. Last week, Watford joined in Circuit Judge Morgan B. Christen’s majority opinion without qualification.

In other coverage, at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Federal Appeals Court Again Backs Educator’s Equal Pay Act Claim.”

“Supreme Court seat goes to Webb; Rival Welch comes up short”: John Moritz of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has this report.

“Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Mourns Passing of Judge Raymond C. Fisher”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release.

“Justices Give Few Hints on How They Will Rule on Louisiana Abortion Law; The Supreme Court is considering whether Louisiana can require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, in a case likely to yield an unusually telling decision”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Louisiana abortion case might come down to Roberts, Kavanaugh.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court conservatives seem open to upholding Louisiana abortion restrictions.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Justices Voice Clashing Views as They Weigh Louisiana Abortion Law; Statute requires doctors performing procedure to hold admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Deeply divided Supreme Court debates limits on abortion providers.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court grapples with Louisiana abortion regulation.” And Ryan Lovelace of The Washington Times has an article headlined “‘You will pay the price’: Schumer, PP mount attacks on Trump-appointed justices over abortion case.”

Elizabeth Crisp of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court hears Louisiana abortion case; here’s what’s next.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court divided in 1st big abortion case of Trump era.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court justices divided in abortion case; Roberts may hold key.” And Jan Wolfe of Reuters has a report headlined “‘Not going back’: Abortion rights forces voice worry outside U.S. Supreme Court.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Suggests Divide Over Louisiana Abortion Limits.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Divided Supreme Court hears challenge to Louisiana abortion law; With a crowd of demonstrators outside the court, the justices heard the first major abortion case since the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, who supported Roe v Wade.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court appears split after hearing first major abortion case with strong conservative majority.”

Bill Mears and Tyler Olson of Fox News report that “Supreme Court at apparent odds over key abortion case on clinic access restrictions.” Ronn Blitzer of Fox News has a report headlined “Schumer unloads on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh at abortion rights rally: ‘You will pay the price!’” Sam Dorman of Fox News has a report headlined “Meet the pro-life Democrat behind one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial cases for 2020.” And Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Trump judicial nominee represents Louisiana in high-profile abortion case.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Outcome of Louisiana abortion case may rest on Roberts, Kavanaugh; Lawyers representing Louisiana abortion clinics that are challenging the law argued the court must stick to the precedent set in 2016.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Roberts wrestles with abortion law in high-stakes Louisiana case.”

Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Just Heard Its First Major Abortion Case With Trump’s Appointees On The Bench; With Roe v. Wade in the balance, a decision on whether a Louisiana abortion law is constitutional will likely come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Melissa Jeltsen of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Split In First Major Abortion Case Of Trump Era; Chief Justice John Roberts may hold the key vote.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Lawmakers use Supreme Court case to press abortion views; Members of Congress spoke to activists while justices inside heard the first abortion case since Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Louisiana Abortion Restrictions Light Up Divided Supreme Court.”

“Abortion rights had a surprisingly hopeful day in the Supreme Court; Louisiana’s lawyer did such a bad job defending an anti-abortion law that she may have lost Chief Justice Roberts”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“The Supreme Court Is at Its Most Divided: The court has not handed down so many closely divided decisions so quickly for a decade.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“How the Supreme Court could give hospitals the power to end Roe v. Wade: ‘The hospital staff doesn’t want that political battle on their hands.'” Caroline Kitchener has this report online at The Lily, a publication of The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court hears first major abortion case with strong 5-4 conservative majority”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“To Ask the Question Presented in June Medical is to Answer it”: Michael C. Dorf has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Not About Roe v. Wade: The big issue in a Louisiana abortion case is legal standing.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Beginning Of The End For Roe? Supreme Court Weighs Louisiana Abortion Law.” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘Violent agreement’ and some disagreement.” Mark Walsh has this interesting post at “SCOTUSblog” about yesterday’s oral argument in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7.

My earlier post collecting news coverage and other commentary about that oral argument can be accessed here.

“Neil Gorsuch is gunning for most irreverent Supreme Court justice”: Ephrat Livni of Quartz has this report.

“Abortion case out of Louisiana a first test for Trump’s Supreme Court justices”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Elizabeth Crisp of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has an article headlined “Supreme Court to take up Louisiana abortion law Wednesday morning; Here’s what to expect.”

Caroline Kelly of CNN reports that “Future of Roe v. Wade in spotlight as Supreme Court considers Louisiana abortion access case.”

Todd Ruger and Sandhya Raman of Roll Call report that “Supreme Court revisits abortion issue over Louisiana law; 2014 law is latest inflection point for the cultural, political and legal currents on abortion.”

Melissa Jeltsen of HuffPost has an article headlined “The Supreme Court Case That Could Gut Roe v. Wade: The future of abortion rights is on the line in a Louisiana case headed to the justices.”

Kate Smith of CBS News reports that “Roe v. Wade might not matter after Supreme Court decides this case.”

Chloe Atkins of NBC News reports that “After shift to the right under Trump, Supreme Court to hear major abortion case from Louisiana; The outcome is uncertain following the president’s nominees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joining the bench.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court abortion case tests Trump’s campaign promise to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Tessa Berenson of Time magazine has an article headlined “The Supreme Court Is Hearing a New Case on Abortion. The Decision Could Impact Women for a Generation.”

Emily Shugerman of The Daily Beast has an article headlined “Here’s What’s at Stake if Supreme Court Upholds Louisiana Abortion Law; The law says abortion providers must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic; That’s trickier than it sounds.”

Today’s broadcast of WBUR’s “Here & Now” contained an audio segment titled “Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Major Abortion Case” featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

In commentary, online at The New York Times, law professor Mary Ziegler has an essay titled “The Heartbeat Bills Were Never the Real Threat to Abortion Rights; The most sophisticated opponents of abortion have long been playing a much subtler game — and we’re about to see it come to fruition.”

And online at The Washington Post, Ziegler has an essay titled “Supreme Court will consider whether states can ‘protect’ women from abortion. What’s behind that argument? Louisiana is saying that clinics should have no right to challenge state regulations on the procedure.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “Ladies’ Week at the Supreme Court Again: Yes, there’s an important abortion case being heard this week; But women lose when we focus too much on individual cases.”

And also online at Slate, Julie F. Kay and Kathryn Kolbert have a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision Could Reshape American Jurisprudence; The court must decide if it’s willing to sacrifice bedrock legal principles in the rush to ban abortions.”

“Supreme Court Divided on Trump’s Power to Fire Head of Consumer Bureau; The justices seemed split along familiar lines in a case challenging the independence of the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court considers options in reviewing consumer bureau’s structure.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs giving presidents more power over semi-independent agencies.”

Jess Bravin and Yuka Hayashi of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Considers Consumer Agency’s Structure, Independence; Case involves president’s power to remove head of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court struggles with independence of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court questions legality of Elizabeth Warren’s CFPB.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court debates presidential power on Super Tuesday.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court conservatives question consumer agency structure.”

Greg Stohr and Robert Schmidt of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Seems Inclined to Curb CFPB’s Independence.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Justices appear to be split as court decides fate of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Divided Supreme Court takes on executive power and limits of independent federal agency authority.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court looks likely to weaken Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but leave it standing.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Justices spar over fate of consumer agency.”

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Readies Kill Shot for CFPB Term Rules.”

Pamela King of Greenwire reports that “Fight over financial oversight places FERC in the crosshairs.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hears Case That Could Weaken Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

In commentary, online at USA Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has an essay titled “Pro-business Supreme Court shouldn’t defang Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; The CFPB shows just what government can accomplish when it is freed from the corruption of corporate influence.”

Online at The New York Times, Jane Manners and Lev Menand have an essay titled “Will the Supreme Court Protect Agencies From Trump’s Reach? A case before the court could expand the president’s power to remove their leaders.”

And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post titled “CFPB defender offers Supreme Court an exit from constitutional issues.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7.

“The Wall Some Texans Want to Build Against Abortion; Around the country, a ‘sanctuary city’ movement is growing on the right and the left, as people seek to keep out views they don’t agree with, legal or not”: Dionne Searcey of The New York Times has this report.

“Another Obamacare Test Looms for Chief Justice John Roberts”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Top Patent Court Urged to Tackle More Full Bench Do-Overs”: Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law has a report that begins, “The Federal Circuit is facing new calls to hear cases as a full court to clarify the law on hot patent issues.”

“An Abortion Clinic’s Fate Before a Transformed Supreme Court; The court will soon hear arguments in its first major abortion case since the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; It could leave Louisiana with a single abortion clinic”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Things We Haven’t Seen Before at the Outset of a Roberts Court Term”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Supreme Court’s Docket Is a Super Tuesday Reminder; Abortion, immigration and corporate power are all on the justices’ calendar this week, and for the next 4 to 40 years”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Justice Gorsuch Would Be ‘Grateful’ if You’d Answer His Question; ‘If we could avoid disparaging our colleagues and just answer my question, I would be grateful,’ Gorsuch said at one point in Tuesday’s arguments in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

Programming note: Now that I’m back home and at work from last week’s vacation in Palm Springs, California (photos forthcoming someday soon on this blog’s Twitter feed), tomorrow morning I will present the first of three Pa. Superior Court oral arguments this month, including an en banc oral argument a little over two weeks from now.

As a result, additional posts will not appear here until tomorrow afternoon. At 10 a.m. eastern time tomorrow. the U.S. Supreme Court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases. Once the Court posts those opinions online, you can access them via this link. As always while I am traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

“The Supreme Court Will Consider Destroying Obamacare; That’s a political gift to Democrats”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The fate of Obamacare is in the Supreme Court’s hands yet again; At stake is millions of people’s health care — and the rule of law.”

“‘Whiplash’ Of LGBTQ Protections And Rights, From Obama To Trump”: Selena Simmons-Duffin had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Partisan fight over consumer bureau arrives at Supreme Court”: Harper Neidig of The Hill has this report.

And in commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Constitutional Case of the Year: Brett Kavanaugh gets his moment on the separation of powers.”

“Congress can’t rely on the courts to enforce its subpoenas. Don’t panic. The bright side of the appeals court decision saying it wouldn’t force former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify.” Law professor Josh Chafetz has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court asked to let ‘faithless electors’ vote their own way”: Dan Berman of CNN has this report on the Opening Brief for Presidential Electors filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court.