“Remote arguments are not cause for postponement, but [Calif.] Supreme Court will make accommodations”: David Ettinger has this blog post at “At the Lectern.”

“Courtroom access: Line-standing businesses save spots in the public line.” Katie Bart has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Also at that blog, Casey Quinlan has a related post titled “Courtroom access: A paid line-stander explains why he waits for hours outside the Supreme Court.”

“Trump threatens to adjourn Congress to get his nominees but likely would be impeded by Senate rules”: Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post has this report.

“Pa. Superior Court Preparing to Use Technology to Quickly Bring Back Oral Arguments; Superior Court President Judge Jack Panella, the intermediate appellate court and its IT team have been working to set up a system so attorneys can argue cases”: Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has this report, in which I am quoted.

“Noel Canning Redux: Justice Scalia wrote that the President could use the adjournment power to block Senate ‘intransigence’; No President has ever adjourned Congress before.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“David Lat Recovers, Returns to an Industry Upended by Contagion”: Elizabeth Olson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Is the Supreme Court About to Take Its First Big CFAA Case? Probably. And they certainly should.” Orin S. Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Wisconsin’s Election Was Not a Triumph for Democracy. It Was a Tragedy. No healthy democracy would force its citizens to jeopardize their lives to vote.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“SCOTUS Drives a Stake Through The Heart of Rule 33.1; The Supreme Court should permanently exempt cert-stage briefs from the Byzantine printing and paper requirements of Rule 33.1”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“New Mexico high court halts automatic mail-in election in victory for GOP”: Michael Gerstein of The Santa Fe New Mexican has an article that begins, “The New Mexico Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition to conduct the June 2 primary election solely by mail, quickly drawing praise from Republicans and condemnation from Democrats who say the ruling will put poll workers and voters at risk.”

In today’s edition of The Albuquerque Journal, Dan McKay has a front page article headlined “NM high court rejects petition for mail election.”

Brenna Goth of Bloomberg Government reports that “New Mexico Court Denies All-Mail Primary Election During Virus.”

Dom Calicchio of Fox News reports that “New Mexico Supreme Court blocks plan for mail-in primary; state’s GOP claims win.”

And Victoria Prieskop of Courthouse News Service reports that “New Mexico High Court Rejects Petition for Mail-In-Only Primary Election.”

You can view via this link the video of yesterday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court of New Mexico. The video also includes that court’s announcement of its ruling from the bench.

“U.S. Supreme Court Moves to Limit Paper Filings”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Freedom is over for midstate man as U.S. court reinstates his conviction for drug informant’s 1992 murder”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“3rd Circuit Rules Against Teenage Trump Supporter Who Sued Newsweek”: P.J. D’Annunzio of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“We hold that a party who complied with directly controlling Supreme Court precedent in collecting fair-share fees cannot be held liable for monetary damages under § 1983.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a decision issued today, becoming the fourth federal appellate court to reach this outcome.

“False Hair Evidence Gets 50-Year-Old Murder Sentence Tossed”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.