“Gov. Tim Walz narrows Minnesota Supreme Court finalists to four; The Walz appointee would replace retiring Justice David Lillehaug”: Stephen Montemayor of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.

“Rethinking Retroactivity in Light of the Supreme Court’s Jury Unanimity Requirement”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

And at his “Dorf on Law” blog, he has a related post titled “What’s Jury Unanimity Got to do with it? Race, Aid to Religion, and Abortion in the Ramos Case.”

“Trump administration plans to go to the Supreme Court in Mueller grand jury document dispute”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court: Dimming the Light of Sinai.” The New York Sun has published this editorial.

“Why a case about jury verdicts could spell trouble for Roe v. Wade”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Originalism and ‘Dual-Track Incorporation'”: William Baude has this post at the “Summary, Judgment” blog.

Majority on divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel affirms but modifies district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining Tennessee from enforcing a three-week ban on abortion based on that state’s assertion that such a ban is necessary to combat COVID-19: You can access this evening’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Courtroom access: Before abortion argument, mixed feelings about line-standers.” Kalvis Golde has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Is Scalia’s Originalism — Indeed, Constitutional Self-Government — Passé?” Mark Pulliam has this post at his “Misrule of Law” blog.

“Supreme Court Expands Conditions for Deporting Lawful Immigrants With Criminal Records; Government wins case seeking to deport a permanent resident who has lived in U.S. since childhood”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “In win for Trump, U.S. Supreme Court makes deporting immigrants for crimes easier.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Divided Supreme Court rules for Trump administration in requiring immigrant’s removal.”

Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “SCOTUS Green Card Ruling Makes it Harder to Stay in U.S.”

And in commentary, online at The Nation, Elie Mystal has an essay titled “SCOTUS Just Found a Way to Inflict More Terror on Immigrants; A new decision written by Kavanaugh reaffirms the idea that the government can reach into a Black or Brown person’s life — and destroy it — at any time.”

“How the Supreme Court has enabled Trump on immigration”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Casting aside its precedents, Supreme Court moves inexorably toward abortion rights”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial titled “The Supreme Court should respect precedent. But this is one decision it was right to overturn.”

“Clean Water Act Covers Groundwater Discharges, Supreme Court Rules; In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court rejected arguments by a county in Hawaii and the Trump administration that only pollution discharged directly into navigable waters requires permits”: 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 rejects Trump administration’s view on key aspect of Clean Water Act.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court rules beaches can be protected from sewage that flows underground.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Clean Water Act Applies to Discharges Into Groundwater, Supreme Court Rules; The 6-3 majority rejects narrow view of environmental law offered by Maui County, Trump administration.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court gives environmentalists narrow win in water pollution case.”

In today’s edition of The Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Timothy Hurley has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court rebuffs Maui County in water pollution case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rejects EPA’s narrow view of Clean Water Act.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to limit water pollution law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Gives Environmentalists Partial Water Law Win.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court says Clean Water Act applies to some groundwater pollution.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court hands environmentalists a win in water pollution case.”

Benjamin J. Hulac of Roll Call reports that “High court backs environmentalists in clean water case; Clean Water Act applies to pollution that flows through groundwater into a major body of water rather than directly from a precise source, according to ruling.”

Pamela King of Greenwire has reports headlined “Justices unveil new test on Clean Water Act’s scope” and “Inside the Supreme Court’s new Clean Water Act test.”

Ellen M. Gilmer and Amena H. Saiyid of Bloomberg Law have a report headlined “SCOTUS Clean Water Act Test ‘Devastating’ for Industry.”

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Snares Maui Fine for Sewage Disposal.”

“Richard Sobol, Civil Rights Lawyer in the South, Dies at 82; Unlike other Northern lawyers who joined the struggle in the South, he stayed, and won a landmark case”: Katharine Q. Seelye of The New York Times has this report.

“How Will Chief Justice And Supreme Court Conservative Majority Affect 2020 Election?” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s edition of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“A Precedent Overturned Reveals a Supreme Court in Crisis; Separate opinions in a case show nine justices pursuing agendas far removed from the dispute at hand”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Ted Frank wants to see class counsel’s ex parte draft opinion in Equifax case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post that begins, “The class action watchdog Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute has asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order the disclosure of a proposed order drafted by class counsel in the $380.5 million Equifax data breach case, arguing that if the trial judge’s 122-page opinion approving the settlement was ‘largely a verbatim edition of an opinion class counsel drafted,’ it must be overturned.”

You can access at this link the motion for relief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“Courtroom access: ‘There’s got to be a better way to do this.'” Amy Howe has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Appeals court finds Constitutional right to literacy for schoolchildren in Detroit case”: John Wisely of The Detroit Free Press has this report.

Christine Ferretti and Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News have a report headlined “Appeals court: Detroit students have fundamental right to education.”

And Corey Williams of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: Detroit students have a right to literacy.”

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

“McConnell Vows Return To Judicial Confirmations In May”: Andrew Kragie of Law360 has this report.

“Texas Supreme Court Reinstates Order Banning Release Of Some Inmates; A judge in Austin temporarily blocked GA-13 earlier this month, after judges argued it hindered their ability to use discretion in releasing people from jail”: Paul DeBenedetto of Houston Public Media has this report on a per curiam decision on writ of mandamus that the Supreme Court of Texas issued today.

“The Supreme Court Takes a Small Step in the Direction of Judicial Independence”: Darcy Covert and A.J. Wang have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate. It begins, “On Monday, the United States Supreme Court did something it had not done for nearly a decade: it denied a motion by the solicitor general to participate in oral argument in a case to which the federal government is not a party.”

“Fordham Urban Law Journal Symposium on Knick v. Township of Scott”: Ilya Somin has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.” You can access the contents of the symposium via this link.

“Justice Alito’s jurisprudence of white racial innocence; Alito gets very upset if you suggest that racism exists”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“The Chevron Doctrine’s Shrinking Domain”: John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Finding Real Life in Teaching Law Online”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this interesting post online at The New Yorker.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Barton v. Barr, Np. 18-725. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. And Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Two cases that could help ‘recage the executive lion'”: Online at The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an essay that begins, “The nation’s second-most important court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sits at the foot of Capitol Hill, half a mile from where Congress sits and a mile from the White House.”

The state appellate courts of Pennsylvania have announced plans for the video or telephonic oral argument of appeals: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania this afternoon posted this tweet announcing its plans to conduct its May 2020 oral argument session by videoconference.

Yesterday, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued an order announcing that on April 30, 2020 the court will begin hearing oral arguments by telephone.

And on Monday, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an announcement stating that its “May 11–15, 2020 Oral Argument Session [will] Be Conducted Remotely Using Advanced Video Communication Technology” — which sounds quite fancy!

“Pay Attention. The Supreme Court Is Talking About Abortion. A ruling on jury verdicts became a debate over precedent.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Everyone Is Mad at Elena Kagan; But there’s a good reason she keeps siding with the conservatives”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Supreme Court Is Split on How to Talk About Race; Some justices seem to think acknowledging the existence of racism is more offensive than the racism itself”: Law professor Leah Litman has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Appealing Temporary Restraining Orders in COVID-19 Related Cases: Temporary restraining orders are normally not appealable; But parties are testing this general rule in cases involving COVID-19.” Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“Automated License Plate Readers, the Mosaic Theory, and the Fourth Amendment; The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court weighs in”: Orin S. Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Public Health in the Balance: Judicial Review of Pandemic-Related Government Restrictions.” Eric A. Posner has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.