“A weakness in the argument for vaccine mandates; The Supreme Court decision allowing the government to require vaccines came before dozens of other cases allowing people autonomy over their bodies”: Nicholas Tampio recently had this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“Va. Supreme Court affirms judge’s ruling reinstating Loudoun teacher who refused to use transgender pronouns”: Hannah Natanson of The Washington Post has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Virginia issued yesterday.

“The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“A Retreat on Racial Preferences: The Justice Department declines to appeal a ruling against the USDA’s discriminatory farm policy.” This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“An alarming new Supreme Court case could unravel Roe v. Wade as soon as Tuesday night; And the loss of abortion rights in Texas may not even be the most troubling aspect of this case”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Texas Officials Ask Supreme Court to Allow Six-Week Abortion Ban”: Greg Stohr and Laurel Calkins of Bloomberg News have this report.

You can access Texas’ U.S. Supreme Court filing at this link.

“Disbar Trump’s Lawyers Who Tried to Steal the Election; They used the courts to perpetuate a massive fraud on the American public; They should not be allowed to practice law”: Law professor Joshua Douglas has this essay online at Washington Monthly.

“Go-to Lawyer for Capitol Riot Defendants Disappears; John Pierce has been a combative advocate for those accused of participating in the Jan. 6 attack, but he’s missed court appearances for a week”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“The US supreme court is deciding more and more cases in a secretive ‘shadow docket’; These emergency rulings — short, unsigned and issued without hearing oral arguments — undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of the court”: Moira Donegan has this essay online at The Guardian (UK).

“Will Chief Justice Burger’s Official Biography Ever Arrive? Twenty-five years ago, the official biographer was paid $600,000. Timothy Flanigan is in no hurry.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Was it Lawful for the Justice Department to Reach a Secret Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein Without Telling His Victims? My cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asks it review the Eleventh Circuit en banc’s decision concluding that Epstein’s victims cannot enforce their right to confer with prosecutors under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act because the Department never formally filed charges against Epstein”: Paul Cassell has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a petition for writ of certiorari that he submitted for filing today to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Celebrating Justice Clarence Thomas’s 30th Anniversary on the Supreme Court”: The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has posted online this collection of essays and video interviews.

“The Court’s Partisan Rules on Executive Power”: Law professor Steven D. Schwinn has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“The Supreme Court Has Just Two Days to Decide the Fate of Roe v. Wade“: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Myths II: The Roberts Court Years.” Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Arizona launches a bold new experiment to limit racist convictions; The state embraces a reform proposed by Justice Thurgood Marshall more than three decades ago”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Are There Too Many Dissents from Denial of En Banc Petitions? A federal judge suggests that dissents from en banc denial make the courts seem too political. Others might think such dissents serve a useful purpose, including the flagging of important questions (and significant errors) for Supreme Court review.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

It is interesting to note that the places where such dissents seem to have proliferated — the Fourth and the Ninth Circuits — are the two federal appellate courts that are regarded as the most liberal, and thus the most likely to be out of step with the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Perhaps in an alternate world where a truly liberal U.S. Supreme Court existed, we would see an increase in dissentals from those circuits dominated by conservative judges.

“4th Circ. judge calls for rule change to address en banc dissent ‘drawbacks'”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on an order denying rehearing en banc, and the concurrence therein and dissents therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Grandma Versus The Foster Parents”: You can access this week’s episode three of season two of the “This Land” podcast — which focuses on litigation to strike down the Indian Child Welfare Act — via this link.