“U.S. Supreme Court ponders cheerleader’s profanity in free speech flap”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Liberals want to expand the Supreme Court. Many Democrats disagree. Senate Republicans are still seizing on the issue in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms.” Marianne LeVine of Politico has this report.

“Federal court: Tennessee’s 48-hour abortion waiting period law still active during appeal.” Adam Friedman of The Tennessean has this report on an order, accompanied by dissenting opinions, that the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued Friday.

Law professor Justin Driver, Mark Walsh of Education Week, John Tinker, and Dr. Steve Brown recently discussed the pending U.S. Supreme Court case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. You can view the video on YouTube via this link.

“Supreme Court poised for another historic spring”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“A cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on student speech”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“A freedom on which all can agree; will the Supreme Court?” John Bursch has this essay online at The Hill.

“Split-Second Decisions: How a Supreme Court Case Shaped Modern Policing; Officers using deadly force rely on a legal doctrine set forth decades ago; Now, the movement launched by the death of George Floyd is trying to change that standard.” David D. Kirkpatrick will have this article in Monday’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court debates the all-powerful F-word”: Columnist Nicholas Goldberg has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“The Supreme Court on the Docket: Democrats are pushing proposals to overhaul the high court, Republicans oppose them, and no one believes change would come easily.” Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court to debate whether nonprofits must reveal donors despite threat of violence”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Judicial Notice (04.24.21): Million-Dollar Deals; Justice Barrett’s big book deal, Bradley Gayton’s lucrative consulting gig, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“A cheerleader’s Snapchat profanity gets U.S. Supreme Court’s attention”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Andy Warhol Foundation fights back in fair use case; Lawyers for the foundation claim a US Court of Appeals decision conflicts with precedent and threatens historically significant contemporary art work”: Daniel Cassady of The Art Newspaper has this report.

“Supreme Court ruling grants constitutional rights for Indigenous peoples outside Canada with ties to the land”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this report.

And Amanda Coletta of The Washington Post reports that “Canada’s Supreme Court says some Native Americans can hunt in British Columbia.”

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

“At the Supreme Court, a tale of two Bretts”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“A 9-0 Defeat for the FTC; The Supreme Court crushes the agency for abusing the law”: The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Donor Disclosure Arrives at the Supreme Court; The Justices hear a major case on privacy and the right of association”: This editorial will appear in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Justice Amy Coney Barrett finally meets the other 8 Supreme Court justices for a class photo”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Does Andy Warhol Get Same Copyright Treatment as Google Code? In a bid for a rehearing at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Andy Warhol Foundation says that if ‘line-for-line’ copying of software code can be deemed transformative by the Supreme Court, so too can Warhol’s silkscreens of a Prince photo.” Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“Can Chauvin get his convictions tossed on appeal?” Michael Tarm of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Notebook: David faces Goliaths over pipeline.” Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press have this report.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed in the Second Circuit in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith: I have uploaded the petition for rehearing en banc, filed today, at this link.

Recently at Techdirt, Cathy Gellis had a post about the three-judge panel’s decision titled “Oh Look, Here’s Some More Culture Being Canceled, Now Thanks To The Second Circuit.”

Gellis’s post begins, “This decision, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, came out only a few weeks ago, yet before the Supreme Court ruled in Google v. Oracle. In light of that latter decision it’s not clear that this one is still good law. Then again, it’s not clear it ever was.”

And earlier, New York Times art critic Blake Gopnik had an essay headlined “Warhol a Lame Copier? The Judges Who Said So Are Sadly Mistaken. An appeals court ruled that Andy Warhol violated a photographer’s copyright by appropriating her image for a silk-screen he did in 1984. Our critic disagrees.”

“Republicans Aren’t Done Messing With Elections; Not content with limiting voting rights, they are threatening the integrity of vote counting itself”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Is it a Federal Crime for a University to Submit Fake Numbers to U.S. News to Change Its Ranking? A perspective from a former prosecutor.” Orin S. Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Why We Like Smith: We Want Neutral and General Laws to Prevent Harm.” Law professors Leslie C. Griffin and Marci A. Hamilton have this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Senate committee to take up Biden judicial nominees in preview of potential Supreme Court fight”: Ann E. Marimow and Paul Kane of The Washington Post have this report.

And Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law reports that “First Biden Judicial Picks Slated for Senate Judiciary Hearing.”

“Supreme Court Cuts Federal Trade Commission Powers to Recover Ill-Gotten Gains; Ruling deals significant blow to longstanding FTC approach against companies that cheat consumers”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

And Robert Barnes and Rachel Lerman of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court unanimous that FTC lacked authority to recover billions for consumers.”

“The Supreme Court’s ‘cursing cheerleader’ case could reshape students’ First Amendment rights; A case about a high school student acting like a high school student raises difficult First Amendment questions”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Chamber to SCOTUS: Corporation’s ‘objectively baseless suit’ is not a sham.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post. And you can view the amicus brief at this link.

“Supreme Court Rejects Limits on Life Terms for Youths; The court, which has for years been cutting back on harsh punishments for juvenile offenders, changed course in a 6-to-3 decision”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules against juvenile sentenced to life without parole.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court OKs life in prison without parole for some juveniles convicted of murder.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Narrows Protections for Juvenile Offenders; Judges need not find defendants permanently incorrigible before imposing life without parole.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds states’ rights to impose life sentences on juveniles.”

“Case over Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘sweetheart deal’ could be headed for Supreme Court; An appeals court ruling left alleged Epstein victims ‘largely empty-handed'”: James Hill of ABC News has this report.

“Episode 18: You Guys Are Such Dads!! (with David Lat).” You can access this week’s new installment of the “In Loco Parent(i)s” podcast hosted by Karen and Steve Vladeck via this link.

“10th Circuit Upholds Sex Abuse Convictions of Former Catholic Priest; Arthur Perrault, a former Roman Catholic priest, argued that the federal court erred by allowing other victims to testify”: Jon Parton of Courthouse News Service has this report on a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Cannabis retailer Harborside appeals 280E tax ruling, but will it prove fruitful?” John Schroyer of Marijuana Business Daily had this report back in June 2020.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision answering that question in the negative.