“With time running out, Trump and GOP allies turn up pressure on Supreme Court in election assault”: David Nakamura and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post have this report.

“In Blistering Retort, 4 Battleground States Tell Texas to Butt Out of Election; The attorneys general of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia asked the Supreme Court to reject a lawsuit from Texas seeking to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victories”: Adam Liptak and Jeremy W. Peters of The New York Times have this report.

“Barr Plans to Finish Term Despite Wanting to Leave Early; The attorney general had weighed whether to step down by the end of the year, potentially avoiding a contentious transition”: Michael S. Schmidt of The New York Times has this report.

“What Really Saved the Republic From Trump? It wasn’t our constitutional system of checks and balances.” Law professor Tim Wu has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Texas Tries an Election Long Shot: Can a state be harmed by the way other states conduct their elections?” Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial that begins, “Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, seems intent on developing a name for himself as the patron saint of lost legal causes.”

“Judge Sullivan’s Final ‘Verdict’: A presidential pardon prompts a norm-busting outburst from the bench.” Columnist Kimberley A. Strassel will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Burdens and Case Law Debated in Close of Wisconsin Abortion Trial”: Joe Kelly of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Supreme Court challenge to election results turns into bitter war between the states”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“The Conservative Idea That Would Let Biden Seize Control of Washington; It might be time for Biden to show he can get behind the unitary executive theory, too”: Law professor Ronald Krotoszynski has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Supreme Court Backs Muslim Men in Case on No-Fly List; The court also dismissed a challenge to Delaware’s court system, which takes account of judges’ partisan ties to create ideological balance”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has articles headlined “Supreme Court rules for Muslims placed on no-fly list after refusing to become FBI informants” and “Supreme Court leaves Delaware system of balancing Democratic and Republican judges in place.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Unanimous Justices Rule Muslim Men Can Sue Agents for Putting Them on No-Fly List; In separate case, Supreme Court finds no time restrictions on rape charges in military.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has articles headlined “Supreme Court says Muslim men wrongly placed on no-fly list can sue for money damages” and “Supreme Court rules that states can regulate pharmacy benefit managers.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court sides with Muslim men against FBI agents over No-Fly List.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices rule Muslim men can sue FBI agents over no-fly list.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court allows Muslim men to sue over ‘no-fly’ list placement.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Leaves Intact Delaware Judicial Partisan-Balance Rules.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court allows Muslim men to sue FBI agents over no-fly list.” And Ellen Mitchell of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules military rape cases have no statute of limitations.”

From Courthouse News Service, Nick Rummell reports that “Agents May Owe Damages for No-Fly-List Decisions, Supreme Court Says.” Alexandra Jones reports that “Delaware’s Partisan Playbook for Court Appointments Survives Suit.” Jack Rodgers and Brandi Buchman have a report headlined “No Time Limit on Military Rape Cases, Justices Rule.” And Rodgers also reports that “Pharmacy Reimbursement Law Gets Supreme Court Backing.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Says Muslim Men Can Sue FBI Agents In No-Fly List Case.”

“A Fascinating Case About Paying a $900 Million Debt by Mistake; The Citi-Revlon overpayment lawsuit tests competing legal principles”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“‘Safe Harbor’ Day Was a Definitive Rebuke of Trump; You can stop doomscrolling about the meeting of electors on Dec. 14”: Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“I Was Wrongfully Imprisoned by a Nonunanimous Jury; The Supreme Court now has the chance to release hundreds like me”: Jerome Morgan has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Rare Lame Duck Federal Executions Preface About Face by Biden”: Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Protests, appeals and recounts continue to delay NC Supreme Court election results”: Danielle Battaglia of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.

“Supreme Court Weighs President’s Power to Fire Head of Housing Agency; The case was brought by shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who say the law that created the agency was unconstitutional and that they are owed billions”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Andrew Ackerman and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Is Skeptical of Fannie, Freddie Investors’ Suit; Case about government sequestering of the mortgage firms’ profits has broad implications for housing finance, powers of agencies.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court takes on Fannie, Freddie presidential power case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs shareholder suit over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.”

Greg Stohr and Joe Light of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Sends Mixed Signals on Fannie-Freddie Investor Claims.”

Sylvan Lane of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments in challenge to housing regulator’s constitutionality.”

Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices Struggle With Fannie-Freddie Case Hinged on Presidential Powers.”

And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Justice Alito emerges as a surprising voice of reason in a $124 billion housing case; The Court’s most loyal Republican appears to recognize that throwing the economy into chaos would be bad.”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Collins v. Mnuchin, No. 19-422.

“Arizona GOP case over voting software heads to the Supreme Court”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“5 big problems with Texas’ bid to overturn Biden’s win at the Supreme Court; ‘This case is hopeless,’ said SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, who argues frequently before the court”: Pete Williams of NBC News has this report.

“Explaining the Supreme Court lawsuit from Texas and Trump challenging Biden’s win”: Ariane de Vogue and Dan Berman of CNN have this report.

“SCOTUS 101: From Michigan with Style.” This recent episode of The Heritage Foundation’s “SCOTUS 101” podcast features an interview with Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond M. Kethledge.

“MDL Appeals, Consolidated Complaints & Parmesan Cheese; When parties submit consolidated complaints, MDL appeals can get complicated”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“Dianne Feinstein’s Missteps Raise a Painful Age Question Among Senate Democrats”: Jane Mayer has this post online at The New Yorker.

“No, Recognizing The Rights And Obligations Of Biological Fathers Is Not ‘Anti-Gay’; It’s time for the media to stop suggesting it’s ‘anti-gay’ to maintain laws aimed at respecting the rights and obligations of a child’s biological father”: Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has this post at The Federalist.

“SJC upholds Charlie Baker’s use of emergency powers to combat COVID-19 pandemic”: Travis Andersen, Matt Stout, and Martin Finucane of The Boston Globe have this report.

And Erin Tiernan of The Boston Herald reports that “SJC backs Charlie Baker’s pandemic powers in landmark ruling.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.

“Litigating Issues under State Constitutions | Judge Jeffrey Sutton”: You can access today’s new installment of the “Texas Appellate Law Podcast,” featuring Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton as the guest, via this link.

“Clarence Thomas’ Road Less Traveled; A pilgrim’s journey is his own, and Justice Clarence Thomas has the confidence and self-awareness not to doubt his choices”: Mark Pulliam has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

Access today’s opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued decisions in four argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett not participating, in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn., No. 18-540. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett not participating, in United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett not participating, in Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309. And Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett not participating, in Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71. You can access the oral argument via this link.