“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.

“Trump says administration will continue legal fight to eliminate Obamacare”: Nikki Carvajal of CNN has this report.

“Mystery swirls after toilet flush heard on Supreme Court conference call”: Steven Nelson of The New York Post has this report.

Ariane de Vogue of CNN has a report headlined “Supreme embarrassment: The flush heard around the country.”

And John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court draws giggles on social media after toilet flush heard on conference call.”

“Nonessential businesses will stay closed, as U.S. Supreme Court denies request to suspend Gov. Wolf’s shutdown”: Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this report.

Louis Casiano of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court denies Pennsylvania businesses’ request to halt governor’s order keeping them closed.”

And John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court declines to lift Pennsylvania COVID-19 health order.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“The Supreme Court Can Only See Certain People’s Suffering; The right to deny birth control coverage is back before the court”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Democrats Press Judicial Nominee, a McConnell Protégé, on Health Care Views; Judge Justin Walker seems headed for confirmation to an important appeals court despite concerns by critics that he would help unravel the Affordable Care Act”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.

Paul Kane and Seung Min Kim of The Washington Post report that “Trump’s judicial nominee clashes with Democrats over his comments critical of health care law.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Senate Republicans Return to Judicial Nominees Amid Coronavirus; Hearing for key appeals court vacancy is part of McConnell’s continued push to fill judiciary with conservatives.”

Ryan Lovelace of The Washington Times reports that “Democrats grill judicial nominee Justin Walker over health care concerns.”

Andrew Wolfson of The Louisville Courier Journal reports that “Democrats attack McConnell protege Justin Walker’s judicial nomination during pandemic.”

Griffin Connolly of The Independent (UK) reports that “McConnell’s top priority remains judges even amid coronavirus — and he’s not trying to hide it; Judge Justin Walker’s nomination hearing on Wednesday confirms that Mitch McConnell’s 2020 motto, ‘Leave no vacancy behind,’ is still in full force.”

Matthew Daly of The Associated Press reports that “Judicial nominee pledges open mind on health law he blasted.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Democrats say Trump’s pick for powerful U.S. court too inexperienced.”

Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News reports that “Democrats Blast McConnell-Backed Circuit Court Pick.”

Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Senate wraps confirmation hearing for 37-year-old federal court nominee Justin Walker.”

Tyler Olson of Fox News has reports headlined “Senate considers controversial Trump circuit court pick in socially distant hearing” and “Senate Dems attack Trump judicial nominee over past comments on ObamaCare in tense hearing.”

Marianne LeVine of Politico reports that “Trump judicial pick hearing turns into fight over Senate’s agenda; Justin Walker’s confirmation to the country’s second most powerful court is a top priority for Mitch McConnell.”

Jordain Carney and Harper Neidig of The Hill report that “Democrats spar with controversial Trump court pick over ObamaCare, Kavanaugh.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “D.C. Circuit nominee sails through confirmation hearing amid pandemic rancor; Hearing became proxy fight over McConnell’s decision to reconvene Senate.”

Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost reports that “Mitch McConnell’s Protege Inches Closer To A Powerful Court Seat; What pandemic? The Senate is focused on confirming 37-year-old Justin Walker to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Nominee For A Powerful Appeals Court Defended His Embrace Of ‘Brett Kavanaugh’s America’; Judge Justin Walker, nominated for the DC Circuit, is set to become one of the youngest federal appeals judges in the country.”

Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law reports that “Trump D.C. Circuit Pick Walker Defends Obamacare Comments.”

Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “Kavanaugh Protege Moves Closer to Taking DC Circuit Bench.”

Ryan Lucas of NPR has a report headlined “37-Year-Old Judge, Epitome Of McConnell Court Strategy, On Track For Confirmation.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Democrats Had an Opportunity to Grill Trump’s Trumpiest Judge; They whiffed.”

“Supreme Court Notebook: Chatty Thomas breaks with precedent.” Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press have this report.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg discharged from the hospital after nonsurgical procedure”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Justice can’t be muted? Flushing sound heard on Supreme Court conference call. It’s not just office co-workers who have difficulty finding the mute button.” Allan Smith of NBC News has this report.

And Jeremy Art of C-SPAN has tweeted a clip of the recording.

“The Supreme Court weighs whether to make the Electoral College even less democratic; The Court’s ‘faithless electors’ case could turn a few unknown individuals into the most powerful people in the nation”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Biden pledged to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. Here’s what he might have to do. There are few black women serving on the federal judiciary, and none younger than age 67 in appeals courts, the usual stepping stone to the high court.” Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.

“Court: Miami jail can’t be forced to give inmates soap, tests during coronavirus outbreak.” David Ovalle of The Miami Herald has this report on a per curiam decision that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Vending Machine Privacy Case Moved Back to Federal Court”: Maya Earls of Bloomberg Law has a report (subscription required for full access) that begins, “A vending machine company’s alleged failure to provide informed consent when collecting fingerprints constitutes an injury necessary for standing in federal court, the Seventh Circuit ruled Tuesday.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“The Supreme Court Could Use the First Amendment to Unleash a Robocall Nightmare; The Court will soon decide whether automated calls to cellphones, however annoying they may be, are constitutionally protected”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Religious Objectors v. Birth Control Back At Supreme Court”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Texas Inmates Ask Supreme Court to Impose Coronavirus Protections; Prisoners seek reinstatement of protective measures blocked by federal appeals court”: Jess Bravin and Sadie Gurman of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Access the live audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor and Trump v. Pennsylvania and in Barr, Att’y Gen. v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. 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.

The Little Sisters oral argument will be the first time the Court has had a live oral argument via teleconference in which two lawyers will argue for the petitioners at 15 minutes per side, greatly reducing the time available for each Justice to ask questions of each advocate.

View live, online today’s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee conformation hearing for D.C. Circuit nominee U.S. District Judge Justin R. Walker (W.D. Ky.): Via this link from the Judiciary Committee’s own web site. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. eastern time.

“Crime Victim’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc Just Filed in the Eleventh Circuit Jeffrey Epstein Case; Epstein’s victims ask the full Court to rehear this case, which upholds concealing ‘secret’ non-prosecution agreements from crime victims”: Paul Cassell has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a petition for rehearing en banc that he filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“The Endless War on the Little Sisters of the Poor: Why does the left insist on making nuns pay for birth control?” Law professor Helen Alvaré has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Judicial Code of Misconduct: An ethics advisory committee is used to defeat a nominee.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Will Americans Lose Their Right to Vote in the Pandemic? The safest way to cast a ballot will very likely be by mail. But with opposition from the president, limited funding and time running out, will that option be available?” Emily Bazelon has this article online at The New York Times Magazine.

“Justice Ginsburg in hospital with infection, court says”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Tuesday with an infection caused by a gallstone, but plans to take part in the court’s arguments by telephone Wednesday, the Supreme Court said.”

And Dennis Romero and Pete Williams of NBC News report that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized for gallbladder condition; She plans to take part in Supreme Court teleconference arguments on Wednesday.”