“Texas judge hands narrow win to abortion providers fighting new 6-week ban”: John Kruzel of The Hill has this report.

And Shawna Chen of Axios reports that “Texas county judge temporarily blocks anti-abortion group from enforcing ban against Planned Parenthood.”

You can access yesterday’s temporary restraining order of the Travis County, Texas District Court at this link.

“TikTok Users and Coders Flood Texas Abortion Site With Fake Tips; To protest Texas’ new abortion law, activists said, they pranked a website set up by the state’s largest anti-abortion group”: Nicole Perlroth of The New York Times has this report. According to the article, “GoDaddy said late Thursday that it had given Texas Right to Life 24 hours to find a new hosting provider before cutting off service.”

And Lizette Chapman of Bloomberg News reports that “Lyft, Uber to Defend Drivers Sued Under Texas Abortion Law.”

Oklahoma stipulates to dismiss its petition for writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bosse case: You can access the stipulation to dismiss at this link.

In related news coverage, Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World reports that “Oklahoma AG dismisses appeal targeting McGirt after state court reverses course on death-row convicts.”

And Derrick James of The McAlester News-Capital reports that “State files to dismiss Supreme Court appeal; files nine more appeals.”

“What the Texas Law Really Means for Abortion in America: The Supreme Court case this week wasn’t about Roe or Casey; But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it.” Sarah Isgur has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

And yesterday’s installment of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast, featuring David French and Sarah Isgur, is titled “Supreme Court’s Texas Abortion Law Decision Explained.”

“5th Circuit Panel Upholds Attorneys Fees for Plaintiffs in Texas Voter ID Case, Judge Ho Concurs Separately in His Own Majority Opinion to Rail Against Earlier 5th Circuit Decision Finding Texas Voter ID Law Discriminatory”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

You can access Circuit Judge James C. Ho‘s “concurring” opinion at this link.

“The Justices Are Telling Us What They Think About Roe v. Wade; A majority on the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down the landmark decision — but they’re not prepared for the ensuing havoc”: Law professor Mary Ziegler has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Five Justices Did This Because They Could; Emergency appeals have become the tool of choice for the conservative movement”: Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“SC Supreme Court strikes down Columbia mask mandate for schools as COVID surges”: John Monk and Chris Trainor of The State of Columbia, South Carolina have this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued yesterday.

“Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearing on Supreme Court’s abortion ruling and ‘shadow docket'”: Tierney Sneed of CNN has this report.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued this news release.

“The Supreme Court Heads Toward Reversing Abortion Rights”: Nina Totenberg of NPR has this report.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t just abuse its shadow docket. It does so inconsistently. Justice Kagan’s dissent cuts to the heart of the problem with the Texas abortion ruling — it undermines the court’s legitimacy.” Law professor Steve Vladeck has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Texas abortion law a ‘radical expansion’ of who can sue whom, and an about-face for Republicans on civil lawsuits; Senate Bill 8, which allows anyone to sue anyone who performs or aids in an abortion, marks an unprecedented change to who has standing to bring a lawsuit; The tactic is also an emerging trend in Republican-dominated states that may compromise constitutional rights, some legal experts said”: Erin Douglas of The Texas Tribune has this report.

“The Texas abortion decision shows why the Democrats must push to add four justices to the court”: Columnist Perry Bacon Jr. has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Supreme Court aids and abets Texas in violating women’s constitutional rights”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, columnist Ruth Marcus has an op-ed that begins, “Congratulations, Texas, you did it. You figured out a way to write an antiabortion law that everyone agrees is unconstitutional under current law — and to ensure that the women whose rights are being violated don’t have the ability to challenge it in court.”

“In the Dead of Night, the Supreme Court Proved It Has Too Much Power”: Columnist Jamelle Bouie has this essay online at The New York Times.

“The Cloud Cast by SCOTUS Conservatives Over Roe Distinguishes the Texas Law From Most Procedurally Similar Ones”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned. The rule of law might have been. The Supreme Court just declined to uphold the Constitution.” Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court vote on Texas abortion law allows a ban without mentioning Roe v. Wade; Even if the high court ultimately rules that the Texas law is unconstitutional, it has already allowed the state to pursue measures that shutter clinics”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at NBC News.

“The Supreme Court Could Not ‘Block’ Texas’ Fetal Heartbeat Law”: Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at Newsweek.

“Abortion opponents watch for violations of Texas ban as providers weigh legal options”: Ann E. Marimow, Matt Zapotosky, and Caroline Kitchener have this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

According to the article, “The ban was shaped by the writings of Austin-based attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, who guided state lawmakers based on an approach he first outlined in a 2018 Virginia Law Review article. Mitchell, who in addition to clerking for Scalia spent five years as Texas solicitor general, declined an interview on Thursday.”