“Clarence Thomas Promotes Trump’s Voter Fraud Lies in Alarming Dissent; Even the ‘appearance of corruption’ is enough to justify voter suppression laws, according to the Supreme Court justice”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Republicans’ New Strategy Is to Pretend Trump Never Happened; At Merrick Garland’s confirmation hearing, GOP senators remembered to be very upset about the Obama years”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court reexamines Florida-Georgia water rights case; Justices press both sides on different interpretations of facts”: Tamar Hallerman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Second high court hearing for Florida-Georgia water war.”

Ellen M. Gilmer of Bloomberg Law reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Blame in Georgia, Florida Water War.”

Kayla Goggin of Courthouse News Service reports that “Florida and Georgia Face Off at Supreme Court Over Water Rights; Florida asked the justices to cap Georgia’s use of water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, arguing the Peach State is using more than its fair share and causing devastation to its southern neighbor’s oyster fisheries.”

Jim Saunders of News Service of Florida reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs arguments in water battle between Florida and Georgia.”

Dave Williams of Capitol Beat News Service reports that “U.S. Supreme Court hears Florida-Georgia water dispute.”

Jeremy P. Jacobs of E&E News reports that “Justices struggle with oystermen’s claims in water dispute.”

Ariana Figueroa of Florida Phoenix reports that “Florida-Georgia water wars case heard by U.S. Supreme Court.”

And today’s broadcast of WBUR’s “Here & Now” contained an audio segment titled “Florida, Georgia Go To Supreme Court Over Water Rights.”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Florida v. Georgia, No. 142, Orig.

“FBI Seized Congressional Cellphone Records Related to Capitol Attack; The inclusion of congressional phone data in the FBI investigation raises thorny constitutional questions”: Ken Klippenstein and Eric Lichtblau of The Intercept have this report.

“Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots; In dissent, three justices said the court should have used the case to provide guidance in future elections”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear a GOP election case from Pennsylvania.”

Kristine Phillips and John Fritze of USA Today report that “Supreme Court won’t hear 2020 election case that questioned some Pennsylvania ballots.” In addition, Fritze reports that “Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania GOP mail-in ballot challenge.”

Jonathan Lai of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Pa. mail-ballot deadline case as election challenges meet dead end; The decisions deny a Republican attempt to severely limit courts’ ability to oversee how elections are run.”

Julian Routh of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear Rep. Kelly’s petition on constitutionality of Pa.’s mail voting law.”

And Ed Palattella of The Erie Times-News reports that “Supreme Court rejects US Rep. Mike Kelly’s election appeal; he calls ruling ‘astounding.’“

“Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Abortion Referrals and Immigration; The cases, both challenges to Trump administration initiatives, may become moot if the Biden administration reverses course”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear challenges to Trump’s abortion, green-card rules.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Review Trump-Era Policies on Family-Planning Funding, Immigration; Justices to take up cases even as the Biden administration reconsiders the two initiatives.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear challenges to abortion, immigration rules held over from Trump administration.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear case over federal funding for abortion.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court to take up Trump immigration, abortion referral rules.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to weigh Trump administration abortion referral restriction.” And Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to review a hardline Trump immigration rule.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Trump Abortion-Counseling Rule” and “Supreme Court Says It Will Consider Trump Immigrant Wealth Test.”

Jessie Hellmann of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to hear challenge on family planning program.” And Rebecca Beitsch of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to hear challenge to Trump ‘public charge’ rule.”

“Designing Supreme Court Term Limits”: Law professors Adam Chilton, Daniel Epps, Kyle Rozema, and Maya Sen have posted this article at SSRN.

“The Journal of Free Speech Law, a New Faculty-Edited Law Journal”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a new faculty-edited law journal whose website you can access here.

“Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Cases Over Conduct of Election in Pennsylvania, With Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas Dissenting: A Ticking Time Bomb To Go Off in a Later Case.” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in five cases that will result in three hours of oral argument.

In Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC v. Hawaii Land Use Commission, No. 20-54, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

And in Republican Party of Pa. v. Degraffenreid, No. 20–542, Justice Thomas issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined.

“Wilding Out”: You can access this week’s installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Melissa Murray, Kate Shaw, and Leah Litman, via this link.

“On Federal Appeals Courts, a Spike in Partisanship; Partisan alignments used to be rare when full appeals courts reconsidered the decisions of three-judge panels; But that changed in the Trump era”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

The article reports on a forthcoming law review article titled “Weaponizing En Banc,” written by law professors Neal Devins and Alli Orr Larsen.