“Oklahoma AG insists state properly tried Bosse for killing mother, two children”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.

And Ken Miller of The Associated Press reports that “Oklahoma asks court to rethink overturning murder conviction.”

“Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Payments to Student-Athletes; But the justices voiced concern that challenges to N.C.A.A. limits on pay beyond the modest education-related sums at issue in the case could threaten the distinction between amateur and pro sports”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court skeptical of NCAA’s case for withholding benefits from student athletes.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices see ‘exploitation’ of college athletes in NCAA case.”

Brent Kendall and Louise Radnofsky of The Wall Street Journal report that “NCAA Pressed by Supreme Court Justices on Player Compensation; They question how colleges, in keeping with antitrust law, can be prohibited from competing for athletes by offering better benefits.”

Steve Berkowitz of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court justices grill NCAA, calling arguments ‘entirely circular’ and ‘somewhat disturbing.’”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “NCAA, college athletes square off at Supreme Court over student compensation.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court sympathetic to college athletes in NCAA dispute.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “NCAA plays defense in U.S. Supreme Court athlete compensation case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “NCAA Gets Mixed Reception at Supreme Court on Athlete Compensation.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court wary of taking too much authority from NCAA over college athletes; The case doesn’t directly involve the hot-button issue of whether athletes should be paid, but it will determine how much authority the NCAA would have over such payments in the future.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court grapples with NCAA rules limiting some payments for student athletes.”

Shannon Bream and Bill Mears of Fox News report that “Supreme Court tips off a legal fight over NCAA amateurism restrictions; It is the first time the high court is considering NCAA’s business model in nearly four decades.”

Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court appears willing to side with college athletes against NCAA in compensation case.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court seems wary of NCAA limits on student-athlete compensation.”

Mark Walsh of Education Week reports that “Supreme Court Sympathetic to College Athletes’ Challenge to NCAA Rules on Education Aid.”

Kaila Philo of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices Voice Sympathy for Student-Athletes in Historic Compensation Case; The NCAA insists that its cash limits protect the integrity of amateur college athletics, but the Supreme Court was leery of the outfit making billions on the backs of low-cost labor.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Weighs Whether NCAA Is Illegally ‘Fixing’ Athlete Compensation.”

In commentary, online at Bloomberg Opinion, Joe Nocera has an essay titled “NCAA’s ‘Amateurism’ Hits a Wall at the Supreme Court; Thanks to a former ‘sneaker pimp,’ compensating college athletes is an idea whose time has come.”

And online at Slate, Alex Kirshner has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Might Be Ready to Smack Down the NCAA; Amy Coney Barrett accurately summed up the NCAA’s argument as an idea that ‘consumers love watching unpaid people play sports.’”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston, No. 20-512.

“Minnesota Court Ruling Fuels Calls to Change Sexual Assault Law; The state Supreme Court tossed out a man’s conviction on a third-degree sexual conduct charge because the woman he was accused of assaulting was ‘voluntarily intoxicated’ at the time”: Christina Morales of The New York Times has this report.

“Against a Flight 93 Jurisprudence; The decay of the American republic ought to prompt a renewed zeal for the recovery of constitutional limits, not a grasp for the levers of judicial power”: John G. Grove has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Texas attorney general backs challenge to Harvard’s affirmative action policies at Supreme Court”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Conservatives fret over Supreme Court’s delay in accepting Mississippi abortion case”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Former Clerk On The ‘Notorious’ Late Justice And Her Enduring Legacy; RBG and Amanda Tyler completed Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue just weeks before the Supreme Court Justice’s passing”: Annie Werner has this article online at Elle.

“In a first, a woman will be VMI’s highest-ranking cadet”: Claire Mitzel has this front page article in today’s edition of The Roanoke Times.

“Statement From Chief Judge Janet DiFiore on the Passing of Associate Judge Paul G. Feinman”: New York State’s Chief Judge issued this statement today.

And Ryan Tarinelli of the New York Law Journal reports that “Trailblazing Judge Paul Feinman Dead After Recent Retirement From Court of Appeals; Paul Feinman redefined what was possible for LGBTQ lawyers and judges in New York, said Matthew Skinner, executive director of The Richard C. Failla LGBTQ Commission, last week.”

“Religious Exceptions and the Deformation of the First Amendment”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

Therein, he writes, “For this topic, I’ll take as my point of departure last week’s Sixth Circuit ruling in Meriwether v. Hartop, which permits a First Amendment lawsuit by a professor at a state university who refused to call a trans student by her preferred pronouns.”

“Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns statewide mask mandate, blocks Evers from declaring multiple emergency orders”: Molly Beck of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

Riley Vetterkind of The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Tony Evers’ emergency orders, face mask requirement unlawful.”

Todd Richmond of The Associated Press reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down governor’s mask mandate.”

And Justine Coleman of The Hill reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court rules governor exceeded authority with mask mandate, emergency orders.”

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin at this link.