“AutoZone Gets Punitives Nixed in Male’s Harassment Suit”: David McAfee and Erin Mulvaney of Bloomberg Law have this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued Monday.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court Weighing Second ‘Safer At Home’ Challenge; Case Argues Stay-At-Home Order Violates State Constitutional Rights”: Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin Public Radio has this report.

And in related coverage, Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Hair salon operator sues over Tony Evers’ stay-at-home order; It’s the 3rd legal challenge to coronavirus response.”

“L’Oreal ducks consumers’ defective liquid cosmetic dispenser claims”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Monday.

“Unnamed Authors May Sue Based on Group Copyrights, 2d Cir. Says”: Blake Brittain of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.

“The Supreme Court Is Not Going to Fix the Electoral College; The Court will decide whether electors must vote for their party’s candidate, but no matter the answer, the system will still be a disaster”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Goats on the Roof at the Supreme Court”: Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog.

You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“GOP Judicial Nominations Race Clock Amid Campaign, Virus Demands”: Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law has this report.

Access the live audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Dep’t of State v. Baca: C-SPAN will broadcast the audio of the first case via this link. And C-SPAN will broadcast the audio of the second case via this link.

“Supreme Court to Weigh Whether Electoral College Members Must Stick to State’s Popular Vote; Cases follow uptick in ‘faithless’ electors in 2016 presidential election, present dueling views of what Constitution’s framers had in mind”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices hear election year cases over ‘faithless electors.’”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear presidential Electoral College dispute.”

Pete Williams of NBC News has a report headlined “‘Faithless elector’: Supreme Court hears cases that could change presidential contestsIf presidential electors are determined to be free agents, a handful — or even one in a close election — could change the outcome.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments over ‘faithless’ Electoral College voters in dispute with 2020 implications.”

And Ephrat Livni of Quartz reports that “Electoral college voters make case for rogue voting at Supreme Court.”

“Will the Supreme Court rectify its qualified immunity mistake?” Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Caesar, God and the Lockdowns: A federal court ruling on religious liberty is a lesson to governors.” Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial that begins, “As governors consider how to ease their lockdowns, they might take a moment to read a pair of unanimous opinions this month from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.”

“A Spaniel, a Mute Button and Profound Matters of State; American democracy in the coronavirus era has gone digital or at least more distant, however fitfully and incompletely, as all three branches of government struggle to adapt to a new reality”: Peter Baker of The New York Times has an article that begins, “With typical gravity and a familiar ‘oyez, oyez, oyez,’ the marshal of the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday morning that the justices had convened and, in keeping with ritual, she called on God to ‘save the United States and this honorable court.'”

“Jeffrey Epstein’s Victims Receive Amicus Support in the Eleventh Circuit”: Paul Cassell has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about his client’s effort to obtain en banc review.

“Democrats Accuse Conservatives of a ‘Dark Money’ Bid to Influence Judges; A proposal to ban membership among judges in the Federalist Society has set off a partisan battle; The influential group has guided President Trump’s rightward overhaul of the judiciary”: Ben Protess and Rebecca R. Ruiz of The New York Times have this report.

“‘Faithless’ Electors Are Faithful to the Constitution; The Supreme Court should strike down state laws that try to constrain Electoral College voters’ choice”: Law professor Sai Prakash has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“U.S. judge puts on hold Justice Dept. move to dismiss Michael Flynn’s guilty plea to hear outside groups’ challenges”: Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig of The Washington Post have this report.

And in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, Sharon LaFraniere will have a front page article headlined “Judge Hesitates to Accept Justice Dept. Move to Drop Flynn Charge; Law enforcement officials’ abrupt decision to end the case drew accusations from former colleagues that they had undermined the rule of law.”

“Justice Clarence Thomas has found his moment”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Michigan woman at center of transgender civil rights case dies at 59”: Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News has an article that begins, “The Michigan woman at the center of a high-profile transgender rights case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court has died, her family said. Aimee Stephens, 59, who had kidney disease, had been in hospice care at home in recent days. She passed away Tuesday, her brother-in-law John Pedit said.”

“Supreme Court confronts ‘faithless electors’ as 2020 presidential election looms”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Supreme Court Takes On Employment Bias at Religious Schools; The cases are the latest in a series the court has had before it considering the relationship between church and state”: 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 split on when parochial teachers may make discrimination claims.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court sounds split in case on rights for Catholic school teachers.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall has an article headlined “Justices Struggle With Religious Institutions’ Freedom to Hire and Fire at Will; Woman was fired after telling Catholic school authorities she had cancer.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court divided over religious employers’ right to fire workers.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Catholic schools, ex-teachers clash in Supreme Court case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean toward shielding religious schools from suits.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Wary of Giving Religious Schools Broad Legal Shield.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court examines discrimination lawsuits against religious schools.”

Ronn Blitzer and Bill Mears of Fox News report that “Supreme Court divided in religious school employment discrimination case.”

John Kruzel and Harper Neidig of The Hill report that “Supreme Court weighs rights of religious employers facing discrimination suits.”

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Catholic Schools Defend Teacher Firings at Supreme Court.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Weighs Whether Religious Schools Can Fire Lay Workers.”

In commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court seems likely to give religious employers a broad ability to discriminate; The Supreme Court’s ‘ministerial exception’ case appears likely to end in victory for the religious right.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Considers Exempting Religious Employers From All Discrimination Laws.”

“Emory student sues university for refund over COVID-19 coursework”: In today’s edition of The Atlanta Jounral-Constitution, Eric Stirgus has an article that begins, “An Emory University student has filed a class action lawsuit against the school, saying the virtual learning it has provided since the coronavirus pandemic has been an inadequate substitute for the tens of thousands of dollars students paid in tuition this semester.”

“Supreme Court Weighs Whether Much of Oklahoma Is an Indian Reservation; The answer to the question could have vast implications for criminal prosecutions and for commerce”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Revisits Boundaries of Creek Reservation; Eight-member court punted on the issue last year; Justice Gorsuch, now participating, may cast deciding vote.”

Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman reports that “Supreme Court justices wrestle with Creek reservation case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Gorsuch, likely key vote, seems to favor Oklahoma tribe.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs Oklahoma tribal authority dispute.”

Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law reports that “Gorsuch Queries Favor Tribe in High-Stakes Reservation Case.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court grapples with tribal sovereignty questions.”

And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices Hear Fight Over Tribal Land in Criminal Appeal.”

“One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History.” Regnery Publishing has announced that, in October 2020, it will publish this book written by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

“Supreme Court to Consider Whether Investigators Can Obtain Trump’s Financial Records; Decision, expected this summer, could have an impact on the 2020 presidential election”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

And Josh Gerstein, Kyle Cheney, and Zach Warmbrodt of Politico report that “Trump’s effort to block tax subpoenas meets the Supreme Court he shaped; Oral arguments in a series of related cases are set to begin on Tuesday.”

“Clarence Thomas wants to shrink your free speech rights — unless you are a rich donor; Clarence Thomas has an expansive view of free speech for campaign donors; For most everyone else, not so much”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Covering court during the COVID-19 crisis”: Bre McAdam has this essay online at The Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

“Not Everyone Is Happy With the Supreme Court’s Live Broadcasts; Lyle Denniston, one of the most seasoned Court watchers of all time, is unimpressed by the new format”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Access the live audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance: C-SPAN will broadcast the audio of the first case via this link. And C-SPAN will broadcast the audio of the second case via this link.

“Momentous Choices for Supreme Court as It Hears Trump Financial Records Cases; The court ruled unanimously against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton when they sought to withhold evidence; But the current court is unlikely to achieve consensus”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear Trump bid to keep his finances secret”: Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters have this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to hear clash over Trump tax, bank records.”

And in commentary, online at The Washington Post, law professor Jed Shugerman has an essay titled “The Founders checked and balanced the president’s finances.”

“Stephens may not live to hear result of transgender rights case”: Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News has this report.

“Reopening Plan Sketchy As Supreme Court Set To Rule In GOP Safer-At-Home Lawsuit”: Marti Mikkelson of Milwaukee’s NPR affiliate WUWM has this report.

“Wisconsin gets the derision it deserves for its partisan Supreme Court”: Dave Zweifel has this essay online at The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin.

“Ransomware attack takes down Texas court network”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has an article that begins, “The computer network serving the state’s appeals courts and judicial agencies has been shut down since a ransomware attack was discovered Friday morning.”

“Ohio Supreme Court dismisses request to postpone trial because of coronavirus concerns”: Jeremy Pelzer of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has an article that begins, “The Ohio Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition to delay what would have been the nation’s first coronavirus-era trial, as the judge hearing the case already postponed it after the defendant was hospitalized with symptoms of the disease.”