“The Court’s Conservatives Clash; Gorsuch and Alito issue dueling opinions on jury trials and precedent”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“[Calif.] Supreme Court might not renew its own extension order”: David Ettinger has this post at the “At the Lectern” blog.

For the reasons I explained in the most recent installment of my monthly appellate column, I applaud this development.

“Supreme Court Rules Against Landowners in Montana Superfund Fight; Landowners may not sue the Atlantic Richfield Company to force it to do more than a federal cleanup plan requires unless the Environmental Protection Agency consents, the court ruled”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court says Montana landowners in Superfund fight must consult with EPA.”

David McCumber and Kristine de Leon of The Montana Standard report that “U.S. Supreme Court deals a blow to Opportunity residents.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court sides with BP unit to curtail Superfund site cleanup lawsuits.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Says Landowners Need EPA Approval on Superfund Cleanups.”

Rachel Frazin of The Hill reports that “Court rules Montana landowners need EPA approval for clean up measures.”

Ephrat Livni of Quartz reports that “US Supreme Court chief John Roberts takes aim at Neil Gorsuch’s ‘evocative’ claims in EPA case.”

Tin Ryan and Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service report that “Superfund Suits in Montana Get Supreme Court’s OK.”

And Pamela King of Greenwire has reports headlined “Supreme Court: EPA must OK cleanup claims” and “Supreme Court ruling isn’t ‘outright victory’ for polluters.”

“Democrats push Joe Biden to release Supreme Court short list and run on future court battles”: Bo Erickson of CBS News has this report.

“Trump Has Key Ally for His Immigration Halt: The Supreme Court.” Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Courtroom access: SCOTUStalk stands in line for Supreme Court seats.” “SCOTUSblog” has this post.

“A Wealth Tax Is the Logical Way to Support Coronavirus Relief; A onetime assessment of the 5 percent at the top would do wonders — and help prove that we are all in this together”: Law professor Daniel Markovits has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Death Penalty States Won’t Turn Over Scarce COVID-19 Drugs”: Austin Sarat has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“‘Tenacious and well-informed, the worst kind’: retired Supreme Court Justice Charlie Wiggins.” Andrew Binion of The Kitsap Sun of Bremerton, Washington has this report.

“Despite the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Government Is Still Targeting L.G.B.T.Q. Rights”: Jeffrey Toobin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“5 Unanswered Questions from Ramos v. Louisiana”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The Supreme Court Rules From Home: In normal times, a blockbuster week of closely watched rulings would be dominating the news.” In today’s installment of “The Daily” podcast from The New York Times, Adam Liptak is Michael Barbaro’s guest.

“Appeals court: Abortions in Texas blocked during pandemic.” Ryan Autullo of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

Tessa Weinberg of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Federal appeals court reinstates ban on medication abortions in Texas amid coronavirus.”

María Méndez of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Federal appeals court allows Texas to again ban most abortions, including by medication; Reversing previous court orders, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of governor’s order, saying state has authority to impose public health measures during coronavirus pandemic.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court lets Texas curb medication abortions during pandemic.”

Laurel Brubaker Calkins of Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Can Once Again Block Abortions Amid Pandemic, Court Says.”

Shannon Najmabadi of The Texas Tribune reports that “Federal appeals court says Texas can block pill-induced abortions during pandemic.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Appeals court reinstates limits on medical abortions in Texas.”

And in related news coverage, Melissa Jeltsen of HuffPost reports that “More Than 100 Women Left Texas To Get An Abortion Under Coronavirus Ban; New data released by Planned Parenthood shows the real-world impact of halting abortions during a pandemic.”

Lauren Young of Rewire.News reports that “Texas Abortion Patients Arrive in Colorado Clinics ‘Frustrated and Exhausted’; People are making the grueling drive from Texas to Colorado for abortion care after Gov. Greg Abbott (R) used the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend abortion rights.”

And Sarah McCammon of NPR reports that “After Texas Abortion Ban, Clinics In Other Southwest States See Influx Of Patients.”

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

“Stop Trying To Make Democracy Happen”: You can access yesterday’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Leah Litman and Melissa Murray, Jaime Santos, and law professor Kate Shaw, via this link.

“Supreme Court Bans Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts for Serious Crimes; The badly fractured decision, affecting defendants in two states, continued a debate among the justices over the power of precedent”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court says state juries must be unanimous to convict for serious crimes.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “In historic ruling, Supreme Court says state jury verdicts in serious criminal cases must be unanimous.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall have an article headlined “Unanimous Verdicts Required for Serious Crimes, Supreme Court Rules; The court also addressed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites, limiting landowners’ ability to use private lawsuits to force restoration.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer has an article headlined “Supreme Court rules jury verdict must be unanimous to convict.”

In today’s edition of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, John Simerman has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court abolishes split jury verdicts; dozens of convictions voided.” And Simerman also has a related article headlined “Cardell Hayes, Ronald Gasser, more: Ruling on split juries upends major Louisiana cases.”

In today’s edition of The Oregonian, Shane Dixon Kavanaugh has a front page article headlined “Oregon’s nonunanimous jury system struck down by U.S. Supreme Court; could invalidate 100s of convictions.”

In today’s edition of The Salem (Ore.) Statesman Journal, Whitney Woodworth has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court finds Oregon’s nonunanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Criminal juries must be unanimous to convict.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Requires Unanimous Verdicts, Spars Over Precedent.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules jury verdicts must be unanimous; Two states, Louisiana and Oregon, allowed defendants to be convicted on divided votes.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN has reports headlined “Supreme Court says unanimous jury verdicts required in state criminal trials for serious offenses” and “Supreme Court adds to its public debate over precedent ahead of major rulings.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court rules criminal jury verdicts must be unanimous, overturning decades-old precedent.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous juries, a win for civil rights advocates.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules non-unanimous jury verdicts unconstitutional.”

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fractured High Court Ruling Says Jury Verdicts Must Be Unanimous.”

Online at The New Republic, Matt Ford has an article headlined “The Supreme Court’s War Over Jury Trials Could Change Everything: Within a plainly just ruling on criminal procedures, conservatives have built a sandbox for tomorrow’s battles over gay rights and abortion.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Decides Unanimous Verdicts Are Required To Convict For Serious Crimes.”

In commentary, online at The Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael McGough has an essay titled “Thanks to the Supreme Court, ’10 Angry Men’ can no longer send you to prison.”

And online at Esquire, Charles P. Pierce has a post titled “You Know Something’s Up When Neil Gorsuch Sounds — For a Moment — Like Thurgood Marshall; By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial also guarantees a unanimous verdict for conviction in state courts.”

Yesterday would have been Justice John Paul Stevens’ 100th birthday: To mark the occasion, the Northwestern University Law Review posted online the contents of a special issue titled “In Memoriam: Justice John Paul Stevens.”

“The Pro-Choice, Progressive Argument for the Court Overturning Roe and Casey”: Eric Segall had this blog post yesterday at “Dorf on Law.”

And today at that blog, Michael C. Dorf has a post in response titled “What’s Wrong with Prof Segall’s ‘Win by Losing’ Approach to Abortion?“

“The Honesty of Originalism”: James R. Rogers has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.