“Prosecutors Fight Against Dismissing Steve Bannon Indictment, Despite Trump’s Pardon; The former White House strategist’s pardon might not be so simple after all”: Mary Papenfuss of HuffPost has this report.

And Corinne Ramey of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Steve Bannon, Federal Prosecutors Spar Over Pardon; Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office says Trump pardon doesn’t extend to indictment charging former White House adviser.”

“Why Did Amazon Cancel Justice Thomas? Without explanation, the company took down a popular documentary during Black History Month.” Columnist Jason L. Riley will have this op-ed in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Biden’s Hurdle: Courts Dubious of Rule by Regulation; Executive orders and agency edicts are important to a president facing a polarized Congress, but judges show increasing skepticism — which conservatives hope to harness.” Jacob M. Schlesinger will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Lower courts take notice: The Supreme Court is rethinking qualified immunity; At a time when Americans of all philosophical stripes seek greater government accountability, the Supreme Court is stepping up to deliver by reintroducing some common sense to the law.” Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo have this essay online at USA Today.

“Ousted Endo lead counsel tells 3rd Circuit that trial judge abused discretion”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post about a petition for writ of mandamus filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

“Supreme Court Takes Up Puerto Rico Case Biden Pledged to Abandon; Court to consider Trump administration effort to reinstate reduced disability payments in U.S. territory, a stance Biden had opposed as candidate”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to examine Puerto Rico’s exclusion from benefits program.”

Zack Budryk of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to decide if Puerto Ricans eligible for SSI.”

And Matt Ford of The New Republic has a post titled “The Supreme Court Case That Lays Bare Puerto Ricans’ ‘Second-Class Citizenship’; Why are residents of the island commonwealth denied certain federal benefits that are given to U.S. citizens nearly everywhere else? The justices have decided to take up that question.”

“Kansas judge suspended for frequent F-bombs, sexism; called Black men ‘boy’ in court”: Dion Lefler of The Wichita Eagle has this report.

And oxana Hegeman of The Associated Press reports that “Kansas Supreme Court suspends foul-mouthed judge from bench.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas at this link.

“Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor to relinquish Pa. Supreme Court’s top post months before he retires”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

Yesterday, the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania issued a news release titled “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Announces Retirement Transition Plan.”

“Supreme Court Seems Ready to Sustain Arizona Voting Limits; The court also signaled that it could tighten the standards for using the Voting Rights Act to challenge all kinds of voting restrictions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court appears to favor upholding voting laws lower court found unfair to minorities.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court leans toward approving Arizona GOP voting rules challenged by Democrats.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Sends Mixed Signals in Voting Rights Case; Arizona measures prompt broader questions from justices about what makes a restriction illegal under Voting Rights Act.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court’s conservatives question effort to unwind voting laws that critics say discriminate.”

Andrew Oxford of The Arizona Republic has an article headlined “Arizona in spotlight: U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in election laws, Voting Rights Act case.”

Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “High court weighing whether Arizona law was meant to suppress minority votes.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court likely to uphold Arizona voting restrictions.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court signals more leeway for voting restrictions.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Suggests Support for Arizona Voting Curbs.”

Sahil Kapur of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court questions need for restrictive voting laws in Voting Rights Act case; The three Trump-appointed justices could provide key swing votes in the ruling.” And Jane C. Timm of NBC News reports that “In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win; The response was a remarkable moment at a pivotal time for voting rights.”

Devin Dwyer of ABC News reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with voting rights and race discrimination; The court’s conservatives appear ready to uphold two contested Arizona laws.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court conservatives poised to uphold Arizona’s curbs on voting.” And Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that “John Roberts has another chance to diminish the Voting Rights Act.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court ponders limits of Voting Rights Act enforcement; Justices concerned about future challenges as much as the fate of Arizona’s laws.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Justices hear sparring over scope of safeguards for minority voters.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Seems Ready To Uphold Restrictive Voting Laws.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Not All the Supreme Court’s Conservatives May Be Ready to Kill the Voting Rights Act; The court looks poised to weaken the law without obliterating it quite yet.”

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Voting Rights Act had a surprisingly good day at the Supreme Court; If the Voting Rights Act survives this latest challenge, thank bad lawyering on the GOP side.”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19-1257.

“SCOTUS Won’t Explain Why It Keeps Blocking COVID Restrictions; The conservative justices have revolutionized the law of religious liberty without bothering to explain why”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Considers Whether Patent Judges Were Properly Appointed; Several justices seemed concerned that judges should have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate; But there was no consensus about how to fix that flaw”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court skeptical about patent judge appointments.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court questions patent tribunal’s constitutionality.”

And Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Questions Power of Patent ‘Death Squad.’”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434.

“The Supreme Court case that could end affirmative action, explained; A case challenging Harvard’s admissions policy gives a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court the vehicle it needs to end race-conscious admissions”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Supreme Court to debate voting rights case that advocates worry will limit access to polls”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court mulls power of landmark law in major voting rights case.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Conservative Supreme Court majority gets another crack at the Voting Rights Act.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court to consider scope of voting rights protections for minorities as GOP pushes to tighten rules.”

Nick Visser of HuffPost reports that “Voting Rights Act Faces Renewed Challenge In Supreme Court; The GOP has been pushing a wave of voter restrictions after Democrats won big in 2020; A conservative majority on the court has voting rights advocates worried.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Voting rights take center stage on Capitol Hill and at Supreme Court; Debates come as state legislatures propose voting law changes in the wake of the 2020 election.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court faces landmark challenge on voting rights.”

Theodoric Meyer of Politico reports that “Progressive group launches ad comparing Supreme Court justices to segregationists; Demand Justice will air a TV ad urging lawmakers to support voting rights legislation.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “High Noon For The Future Of The Voting Rights Act At The Supreme Court.”

In commentary, online at The New York Times, law professor Leah Litman and Jay Willis have an essay titled “Will the Supreme Court Gut the Voting Rights Act? The court is being asked how hard it should be for states to pass what might be voter-suppression laws.”

Online at Slate, David H. Gans has a jurisprudence essay titled “SCOTUS Will Consider Another Way to Gut the Voting Rights Act; The Supreme Court will hear a case out of Arizona that attempts to roll back one of the Voting Rights Act’s most crucial components.”

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court is about to hear two cases that could destroy what remains of the Voting Rights Act; A 6-3 Republican Court will hear one of the most aggressive attacks on voting rights since Jim Crow.”

And online at MSNBC, law professor Jessica Levinson has an essay titled “This SCOTUS doesn’t care about your voting rights; The Supreme Court already broke the Voting Rights Act once; Congress can’t let it happen again.”

Beginning at 10 a.m. eastern time today, C-SPAN will livestream the audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument via this link.

“Durbin, New Judiciary Chair, Warns Republicans on Blocking Judges; Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, discussed how he would push through President Biden’s judicial nominees, tackle immigration and address domestic terrorism”: Carl Hulse has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.