“Interview: Zoe Tillman.” Elise Spenner has this post at the “High School SCOTUS” blog.

Also at that blog, Hannah Saraf has a post titled “Interview: Kate Shaw.”

“The Texas case is not just about abortion. All sorts of rights are at stake.” The Washington Post has published this editorial.

“Inside the court: A historic three hours that could decide the future of abortion rights.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“If the New Supreme Court Stymies Gun Safety Laws, What Comes Next?” Law professor Adam Winkler has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

And online at Slate, professor Saul Cornell has a jurisprudence essay titled “Will the Supreme Court Create Universal Concealed Carry Based on Fantasy Originalism?“

“Roe Is as Good as Gone. It’s Time for a New Strategy.” Kathryn Kolbert and Julie F. Kay have this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Students fighting for civics education unlikely to get 1st Circuit mandate; The federal appeals court held arguments Monday but seemed highly doubtful that the Constitution requires teaching schoolchildren about the Constitution”: Thomas F. Harrison of Courthouse News Service has this report on an oral argument that occurred today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In earlier coverage, in today’s edition of The Boston Globe, Edward Fitzpatrick reports that “Appeals court to hear R.I. case with national implications for civics education; The appeal cites the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol as evidence of the need to improve instruction in ‘capable citizenship’ and ‘civic discourse.’”

And in commentary, online at The Boston Globe, law professor Martha Minow has an essay titled “Why civics education should be ‘a right which must be made available to all on equal terms’; The former dean of Harvard Law School points out that self-government needs people who are equipped to govern.”

“Two cases. Three hours of arguments. Four sets of lawyers. Fifty mentions of abortion. One pair of red socks.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Hints That It May Allow Challenge to Texas Abortion Law; In two arguments on Monday, the justices considered challenges from abortion providers and the Biden administration to a law that bans abortions after about six weeks”: Adam Liptak will have this front page article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court seems willing to allow challenge of Texas’s restrictive abortion law.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices, including Barrett and Kavanaugh, sound skeptical of Texas abortion law.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Questions Texas Abortion Law; Justices voice concern about state’s efforts to shield its stringent restrictions on abortions from judicial scrutiny.”

John Fritze, Rick Rouan, and Matthew Brown of USA Today report that “Some Supreme Court justices skeptical of Texas abortion law, impact on other rights.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Texas abortion law could lead to deluge of Supreme Court challenges to Constitution: Biden admin.”

Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has an article headlined “As Supreme Court weighs Texas abortion law, opposing sides focus on its impact.”

Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “Supreme Court questions controversial Texas abortion law.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court leans toward allowing challenge to Texas abortion law.”

Greg Stohr and David Yaffe-Bellany of Bloomberg News report that “Kavanaugh, Barrett Signal Skepticism in Texas Abortion-Law Case.”

Josh Gerstein and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico report that “Kavanaugh, Barrett air skepticism of Texas abortion law; Two of three Trump-appointed justices grilled the state on the implications of its ban.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court signals skepticism over Texas’s six-week abortion ban.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Justices Have Big Problems With How Texas Went About Trying To Ban Abortion; The Supreme Court seemed open to letting abortion providers go ahead with a challenge to SB 8; The fate of the Justice Department’s case is less clear.”

Lydia O’Connor of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Justices Appear Open To Allowing Challenges To Texas Abortion Law; Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett asked some telling questions about the law’s unusual structure.”

Reese Oxner of The Texas Tribune reports that “Key U.S. Supreme Court justices express concern about Texas abortion law’s enforcement; Six justices — including two who voted against blocking Senate Bill 8 when it first went into effect — voiced concern that other states could replicate the controversial law’s enforcement mechanism.”

Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Key justices critical of Texas abortion law; Arguments over a near-total ban of abortions in Texas showed the Supreme Court’s two newest justices leaning in favor of providers who have seen half as many women coming in for the procedure in the month since it took effect.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “The Supreme Court heard arguments in Texas abortion law case.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463. And the Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in United States v. Texas, No. 21-588.

“Two SCOTUS SB8 Oral Argument Hot Takes: On Constitutional Remedies and Novelty.” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Supreme Court Tries to Tame Unruly Oral Arguments; The court, which is hearing major cases on abortion and guns, has revised its procedures to make sure that all justices are heard”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Architects of Texas’ Abortion Ban Overplayed Their Hand; Three conservative justices recognized the law for what it is: an affront to their own authority.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Also online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Casual Sexism Displayed at SCOTUS as the Justices Debated the Future of Abortion Rights; The second woman to ever be Solicitor General could barely get a word in.”

“Two conservative Supreme Court justices appear open to abortion providers being able to challenge Texas law”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Should It Become the Harlan Palace? Is it time to give the Supreme Court building a name? And would John Marshall Harlan be the right name?” Tony Mauro has this post at his “The Marble Palace Blog.”

“Governor Abbott Appoints Evan Young To The Supreme Court Of Texas”: The Office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued this news release.

As the news release explains, “Young will replace Justice Eva Guzman on the bench.” Guzman resigned in June 2021 to run for Attorney General of Texas.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

In Simmons v. United States, No. 20-1704, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined, respecting the denial of certiorari.

In Coonce v. United States, No. 19–7862, Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Kagan joined, from the denial of certiorari.

And in American Civil Liberties Union v. United States, No. 20–1499, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissent, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, from the denial of certiorari.