“U.S. appeals ruling that barred Postal Service changes before election”: David Shepardson of Reuters has this report.

“In Key States, Republicans Were Critical in Resisting Trump’s Election Narrative; They refuted conspiracy theories, certified results, dismissed lawsuits and repudiated a president of their own party”: Peter Baker and Kathleen Gray will have this front page article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“For Trump advocate Sidney Powell, a playbook steeped in conspiracy theories”: Aaron C. Davis, Josh Dawsey, Emma Brown, and Jon Swaine of The Washington Post have this report.

“20 days of fantasy and failure: Inside Trump’s quest to overturn the election.” Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey, and Amy Gardner of The Washington Post have this report.

“Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit against mail ballots with prejudice in another defeat for Trump”: Elise Viebeck of The Washington Post has this report.

Marc Levy of The Associated Press reports that “Pennsylvania high court rejects lawsuit challenging election.”

Pete Williams and Dennis Romero of NBC News report that “Pennsylvania high court throws out challenge to mail-in ballots; The plaintiffs lacked ‘due diligence’ in a claim that could have disenfranchised millions of voters, the state Supreme Court said.”

Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses another election case brought by Republicans.”

Paul Best of Fox News reports that “Pa. Supreme Court dismisses Republican congressman’s bid to toss mail-in ballots, halt certification; Pennsylvania certified Biden’s victory Tuesday.”

Kelly Hooper of Politico reports that “Pennsylvania high court tosses lawmaker’s petition to halt election certification; The seven-member court unanimously agreed that the effort to halt the election results came too late.”

And Lauren Vella of The Hill reports that “Pennsylvania Supreme Court strikes down GOP bid to stop election certification.”

“The Supreme Court’s Bar Membership Is Not ‘Shrouded in Secrecy’; The Journal of the Supreme Court includes the name of every member admitted, as well as the name of every member who is subject to discipline”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Pennsylvania Supreme Court tosses GOP congressman’s suit seeking to throw out all ballots cast by mail”: Jeremy Roebuck of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

Ed Palattella of The Erie Times-News reports that “Pa. Supreme Court dismisses Mike Kelly-led lawsuit that sought to invalidate mail-in votes.”

Oliver O’Connell of The Independent (UK) reports that “Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismisses Trump allies’ attempt to throw out millions of mail-in ballots.”

And Bob Van Voris of Bloomberg News reports that “Pennsylvania’s High Court Allows State to Complete Certification.”

“The Supreme Court, faithless electors, and Trump’s final, futile fight”: Tom Goldstein has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Pa. Supreme Court: “The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77.” By means of a per curiam order issued this evening, the Pa. Supreme Court has rejected and dismissed a suit alleging that Pennsylvania’s statute authorizing widespread voting by mail violated Pennsylvania’s Constitution.

Justice David N. Wecht issued a concurring statement. And Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor issued a concurring and dissenting statement, in which Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy joined.

“Open the Bar: Toward Greater Supreme Court Transparency.” Harry William Baumgarten has this essay, in which he argues that the U.S. Supreme Court‘s failure to make available online the names of the members of its bar is cause for concern, online at the Georgetown Public Policy Review.

“The Supreme Court finally has a majority that will protect religious freedom”: Columnist Henry Olsen has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“California Supreme Court refuses to halt San Bernardino civil trial over COVID-19 fears; California State University system, named as defendants in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, had argued the trial could be a super-spreader event”: Scott Schwebke has this article online at The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California.

“Trump’s bid to exclude undocumented immigrants from reapportionment arrives at Supreme Court”: Robert Barnes and Tara Bahrampour of The Washington Post have this report.

“Pennsylvania’s top court expected to act quickly on appeal to let state proceed with election certification; The Wolf administration is asking the state Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to invalidate mail-in ballots cast Nov. 3 or let the legislature pick Pa.’s electors”: Emily Previti of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s NPR affiliate WITF has this report.

“Judge Questions Pennsylvania Mail-In Vote Law Enacted in 2019”: Bob Van Voris of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “A Pennsylvania judge who tried to halt additional steps needed to certify the state’s 2020 election results said the Pennsylvania legislature’s expansion of mail-in voting, enacted over a year earlier, was likely illegal.”

My earlier coverage of last night’s opinion of Pa. Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough can be accessed here.

“Emmet Sullivan’s handling of the Michael Flynn case is vindicated”: Elliot Williams has this essay online at The Washington Post.

In other commentary on this subject, Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contained an editorial titled “A Pardon for General Flynn: Finally an end to a disgraceful case of politicized prosecution.”

Also in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, columnist Kimberley A. Strassel had an op-ed titled “Justice for Michael Flynn: Trump’s pardon for his onetime national security adviser rights a grievous wrong.”

“Supreme Court’s scientifically illiterate decision will cost lives”: Jeffrey D. Sachs has this essay online at CNN.

“High court takes up census case, as other count issues loom”: Mike Schneider and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press have this report.

And The Saturday Essay feature in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, written by Janet Adamy and Paul Overberg, is headlined “The Census Predicament: Counting Americans by Race; The racial and ethnic categories used by the U.S. Census obscure the changing ways we think about identity and assimilation.”

“Biden Aims to Appoint Liberal Judges After Trump’s Conservative Push; President-elect will seek nominees who see robust role for judiciary in addressing national problems, protecting individual rights”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

A Pa. Commonwealth Court judge opined late Friday that challengers to Pa.’s general election results have a likelihood of success in prevailing on their claim that the statute authorizing mail-in ballots violates Pa.’s Constitution: You can access Friday’s opinion of Judge Patricia A. McCullough at this link. The relevant language from the opinion that I am referring to in this post’s title appears on pages 10-11 of the opinion.

The order that is the subject of this opinion is already pending on direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, the judge who issued an order that is on direct appeal is required to issue an opinion in support of that order to facilitate appellate review. That is the purpose of the opinion that Judge McCullough issued late Friday.