“Amy Coney Barrett and the Ivies: Harvard and Yale worry what the newest justice would mean for their racial-preference policies.” Columnist William McGurn will have this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Amy Coney Barrett Should Refuse to Recuse; She’d have a duty to hear election cases if she’s confirmed”: This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Barrett hearings become platform for COVID-19 risk debate; Mike Lee attendance, masks, gripes put disease in forefront”: Mary Ellen McIntire of Roll Call has this report.

“Amy Coney Barrett papers over rift between Trump and GOP; Republicans are resisting Trump on stimulus and fear he may sink their Senate majority”: Burgess Everett and John Bresnahan of Politico have this report.

“Did Democrats Blow the First Day of Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Hearings?” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence conversation online at Slate.

Also online at Slate, Jeremy Stahl has a jurisprudence essay titled “Senate Republicans Defend Themselves Against Their Own Arguments from 2016.”

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The single biggest lie told in the first day of the Amy Coney Barrett hearing: Who do you think you’re fooling, Senator Lee?“

“U.S. Supreme Court nominee Barrett has proven steadfastly conservative”: Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters have this report.

“Judge Barrett and the Affordable Care Act”: At the “Balkinization” blog, Gerard N. Magliocca has a post in which he writes, “Thus, the relevant question is whether Judge Barrett should recuse herself from the case in the interest of fairness to the opponents of the ACA.”

“Two Questions for Judge Barrett About Stare Decisis: In a constitutional case, should a justice ever stand by a clearly erroneous precedent?” Dale Carpenter has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has seven kids. And don’t you dare forget it.” Senior critic-at-large Robin Givhan has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Antonin Scalia’s legacy looms over the Amy Coney Barrett hearings”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“The Precedent, and Perils, of Court Packing; As the Senate begins hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, some liberals say expanding the size of the Supreme Court would be a fitting response to recent Republican moves in the confirmation wars”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Two Parties Offer Dueling Views of Barrett as Confirmation Fight Begins; On the first day of the election-season confirmation hearings, Democrats portrayed Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a threat to Americans’ health care coverage as Republicans charged anti-Catholic bias”: Nicholas Fandos of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes, Seung Min Kim, and Derek Hawkins of The Washington Post report that “Barrett vows to be apolitical as Democrats warn of threat to health care.”

Mark Sherman, Lisa Mascaro, and Mary Clare Jalonick of The Associated Press report that “Barrett vows fair approach as justice, Democrats skeptical.”

Lawrence Hurley and Patricia Zengerle of Reuters report that “Harris, fellow Democrats target Trump Supreme Court nominee on Obamacare.”

Laura Litvan and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Barrett Gets Her Chance to Speak After Hours of Tributes, Jabs.”

Sahil Kapur of NBC News reports that “With eye on election, Democrats hammer health care on first day of Barrett hearing; Unable to block Trump’s nominee, Democrats are appealing to pandemic-weary voters who are concerned about health care to exact revenge at the ballot box.”

Clare Foran and Ariane de Vogue of CNN report that “Democrats argue Barrett threatens Obamacare at confirmation hearing while GOP touts her abilities.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News has a report headlined “8 key moments of Amy Coney Barrett’s first day of confirmation hearings; The hearing was marked with controversy from the very beginning.”

Andrew Desiderio and Marianne LeVine of Politico report that “Old grudges hang over first day of Barrett hearings; Senators were still seething over previous feuds, including the 2016 battle over Merrick Garland.”

John Kruzel and Jordain Carney of The Hill report that “Democrats warn of ObamaCare threat from Barrett, Trump.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call has a report headlined “Lots of partisan sniping, but not a lot of mystery, at Supreme Court confirmation hearing; The ongoing pandemic and Republicans’ hurry to hold hearings created a bit of history Monday.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The First Day Of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Hearing Wasn’t Really About Her At All; Democrats focused on the fate of the Affordable Care Act while both parties relitigated fights over Merrick Garland and Brett Kavanaugh.”

Megan Mineiro and Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service report that “Barrett Confirmation Hearing Powers Up Under Shadow of Virus Outbreak.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Senate Begins Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.”

“Two Trump-appointed circuit judges don’t think much of shareholder class actions”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Vote Like the Federal Judiciary Is on the Ballot”: This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will appear in tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Sen. Dumpty of Wonderland Votes Nay on Amy Coney Barrett; Democrats threaten to pack the Supreme Court, then pretend not to know what the phrase means”: Columnist Gerard Baker has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Republicans, Democrats Clash at Confirmation Hearing for Amy Coney Barrett; Democrats focus on Affordable Care Act, while Republicans accuse them of trying to turn court into arm of the legislature”: Siobhan Hughes of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Confirming Barrett is a fairy-tale temptation rife with dark trade-offs”: Columnist Michael Gerson has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Charles Koch’s Big Bet on Barrett; For almost 50 years, the multibillionaire has been pushing for a court unfriendly to regulation of the market; He may be on the brink of victory”: Christopher Leonard has this essay online at The New York Times.

“The Myth of the Originalist Judge”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Signing Off on Discussing Court Reform”: Mark Tushnet has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

“Don’t Be So Sure a Justice Barrett Would Overturn Roe; She has already been called an extremist on questions of precedent; But in her writing, she has expressed a decidedly mainstream view”: Professor Keith E. Whittington has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Judges’ politics absolutely sway how they decide cases. I crunched the numbers. I surveyed 74 court rulings on religious freedom and Covid lockdowns. I was staggered by the partisan divide.” Zalman Rothschild has this essay online at The Guardian (UK).

“Republicans try to squeeze last electoral juice out of Supreme Court fight; With Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings set for Monday, the political energy of high court battles is shifting toward Democrats”: Jonathan Allen of NBC News has this news analysis.

“Amy Coney Barrett’s Religion Won’t Dictate Her Rulings; A person of faith can be an impartial judge”: Former D.C. Circuit Judge Thomas Beall Griffith has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Chase Strangio’s Victories for Transgender Rights; The A.C.L.U. attorney works as a representative in every sense of the word”: Masha Gessen has this Annals of Activism article in the October 19, 2020 issue of The New Yorker.

“Rooted in Faith, Amy Coney Barrett Represents a New Conservatism; As Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearings are set to begin Monday, her background and résumé are a stark departure from those of more traditional nominees to the Supreme Court”: Elizabeth Dias, Rebecca R. Ruiz, and Sharon LaFraniere have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Also in today’s edition of that newspaper, Nicholas Fandos has an article headlined “Parties Offer Divergent Portraits of Barrett as Senate Opens Hearings; Democrats will portray President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee as an ideologue, while Republicans will paint her as an accomplished working mother.”

“Amy Barrett’s law review articles show how Supreme Court rulings like Roe v. Wade could be challenged”: Kevin McCoy of USA Today has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Amy Coney Barrett’s View of Tossing Supreme Court Precedent Alarms Critics.”