“Trump’s indefensible refusal to defend Obamacare”: Law professor Neal Katyal has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“From Guns to Church, Emergency Virus Measures Test Core Rights”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

Online at Rolling Stone, Jamil Smith has an essay titled “They Are Giving You Death and Calling It Liberty; The reckless Republicans opening America up to a deadly pandemic want us to risk sacrificing our lives for their power.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has an essay titled “Whose Freedom Counts? Anti-lockdown protesters are twisting the idea of liberty.”

And online at The Atlantic, Ibram X. Kendi has an essay titled “We’re Still Living and Dying in the Slaveholders’ Republic; The pandemic has brought the latest battle in the long American war over communal well-being.”

“Wisconsin Supreme Court justices pledged not to write new law. Could they do that in coronavirus case?” Molly Beck and Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have this report (subscription required for access).

Online at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, columnist Daniel Bice has an essay titled “Supreme Court Chief Justice Roggensack blasted as ‘elitist,’ ‘out of touch’ for meatpacking remark.”

And online at Esquire, Charles P. Pierce has a post titled “The Wisconsin Supreme Court Hearing on Tuesday Was Compelling Theater of the Absurd. In which Justice Rebecca Bradley goes full Glenn Beck. (Never go full Glenn Beck.)“

“Supreme Court of Canada to hold virtual hearings in June”: Sean Fine of The Globe and Mail of Toronto has an article that begins, “The country’s highest court is about to begin an experiment in a key stage of its legal process: oral argument.”

According to the article, “The video hearings will put the Supreme Court far in front of its U.S. counterpart, which this month began holding hearings by telephone conference calls.”

“John Barrow and the brewing fight over a vanished Supreme Court race”: Columnist Jim Galloway has this essay online at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Governor announces state has filed appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in Edmo case”: Betsy Z. Russell of the Idaho Press has an article that begins, “Gov. Brad Little announced today that the state of Idaho has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to reverse a federal appeals court order requiring the state to provide surgery to Idaho prison inmate Adree Edmo, a transgender woman housed in a men’s prison.”

“Climate change unleashes interstate water wars”: Pamela King of Greenwire has an article that begins, “A looming Supreme Court showdown over water flows from the Pecos River may be the first in a rising swell of interstate water battles driven by climate change.”

“Equifax judge orders disclosure of class counsel’s draft ‘opinion'”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Hawaii Supreme Court Hears Maui Water Case In A Historic Online Session; The Hawaii Supreme Court is weighing long-standing disagreements over stream water diversion in East Maui”: Chad Blair of Honolulu Civil Beat has this report.

“Why a Toilet Flush Is Chief Justice John Roberts’ Worst Nightmare Come True; The livestream mishap is no joke to a Supreme Court that draws its legitimacy from mystique and prestige”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Changes in Supreme Court Oral Argument Format: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Michigan House and Senate Move to Intervene, and Petition for Rehearing En Banc in ‘Basic Minimum Education Case'”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court justices are behaving nicely on the phone. It may impact who wins.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Pandemic proves Justice Thomas does have something to say”: Law professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Aaron L. Nielson have this essay online at The Hill.

“Trump Pushes Young Republicans Away. Abortion Pulls Them Back. On everything from climate change to marijuana, the generational divide that is evident among Democrats is no less present on the other side of the aisle. It’s just less visible.” Maggie Astor has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Trump vows complete end of Obamacare law despite pandemic”: Devlin Barrett has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Courtroom access: The ‘bar line’ and ‘bar section.'” Amy Howe has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Divided Over Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate; The justices considered whether the Trump administration may allow employers to refuse to provide free insurance coverage for birth control on religious or moral grounds”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow has an article headlined “Supreme Court struggles with Trump administration’s limits on birth control coverage.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “From hospital bed, Ginsburg challenges Trump plan to limit Obamacare’s birth-control coverage.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin have an article headlined “Supreme Court Split Over Religious Exemptions for Birth-Control Coverage; The case involves moral and religious exemptions to an Affordable Care Act rule that employers include contraception coverage with no out-of-pocket costs.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court struggles to find balance between religious freedom, reproductive rights.”

Christopher Vondracek of The Washington Times has articles headlined “Chief justice questions if Trump religious liberty law is ‘too sweeping’” and “Catholic nuns to Supreme Court: Obamacare birth control work-around an unconstitutional ‘hijacking.’”

In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jeremy Roebuck has an article headlined “Pa.’s birth-control war returns to a divided U.S. Supreme Court.”

Laura Olson of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reports that “Pennsylvania at center of hearing Wednesday as U.S. Supreme Court again grappled with birth control access.”

Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press report that “Justices wary of ‘Obamacare’ birth control coverage changes.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with Obamacare contraception case.”

Greg Stohr and David McLaughlin of Bloomberg News report that “Roberts Questions Trump’s Curbs to Obamacare Birth-Control Rule.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court appears divided on Trump plan to limit contraception coverage; The case involves rules giving companies broader authority to cite religious objections for not providing birth control coverage.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court hears Obamacare contraceptive mandate challenge via telephone.”

Bill Mears and Ronn Blitzer of Fox News report that “Supreme Court appears split along ideological lines during arguments in ObamaCare contraception case.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court justices clash over Trump rules allowing religious employers to deny contraceptive coverage.”

Susannah Luthi of Politico reports that “Supreme Court questions Trump’s rollback of birth control coverage; The justices appeared frustrated that the long-running battle hasn’t been resolved.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Justices split over religious exemptions for ObamaCare birth control mandate.”

Sandhya Raman of Roll Call has a report headlined “Supreme Court treads back into birth control coverage debate; Feisty oral arguments over rules that limit access to contraception.”

Melissa Jeltsen of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Appears Divided In Critical Birth Control Case; The outcome could have a big impact on women’s ability to get free contraception through their health plans.”

Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Heard Arguments Over Whether Trump Can Let Employers Deny Birth Control Coverage For Moral Reasons; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was hospitalized with a gallstone infection, participated in the remote arguments from her hospital bed.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Tackles Trump-Set Barriers to Free Contraception.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Fervor Vs Compromise At Supreme Court Birth Control Arguments.”

In commentary, The Los Angeles Times has published an editorial titled “A battle over birth control the Trump administration should lose.”

Also online at The Los Angeles Times, columnist Jon Healey has an essay titled “The Supreme Court needs to rescue birth control access from the Trump administration.”

The New York Sun has published an editorial titled “Little Sisters of the Poor: The Elephant in the Room.”

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A Supreme Court showdown over birth control got much messier Wednesday; The Court’s sympathy for religious conservatives is in tension with its desire to shrink the administrative state.”

“Unlike GOP colleagues, Parson not planning to halt execution due to coronavirus”: Kurt Erickson of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article that begins, “Missouri may stand alone when it comes to conducting an execution during a global pandemic. While other governors have put the death penalty on hold because of the pandemic, Gov. Mike Parson is not planning to stop the scheduled execution of Walter Barton on May 19.”

“The Real Vote Suppression Threat: The Supreme Court weighs whether Electoral College electors can vote their preference for president rather than the choice of their state.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Massachusetts consumer-protection law could prove a slippery slope for maker of Wesson Vegetable Oil in an ingredient lawsuit”: Adam Gaffin has this post at Boston’s Universal Hub about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday.

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

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Kelly v. United States, No. 18-1059. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.