“Supreme Court sends Texas abortion case to appeals court instead of to judge who previously blocked the law”: Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Gorsuch deals abortion providers another setback by sending Texas SB8 lawsuit to a conservative appeals court.”

“The Supreme Court, Weaponized”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“En Banc Review Needs To Be Curtailed; The procedure is unnecessary except in rare situations anyway, and it defeats the purpose of randomly selecting judges and politicizes the courts”: Dilan Esper has this post at his Substack site.

“Report: 11 executions in 2021 mark three-decade low.” Michael Tarm of The Associated Press has this article.

“Wisconsin attorney general won’t enforce any abortion ban”: Scott Bauer of The Associated Press has this report.

“3rd Circuit’s Ambro to take senior status, giving Biden third vacancy”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Biden set to surpass Trump in first-year judicial nominees; a window into a major Democratic push”: Phil Mattingly of CNN has this report.

“Seven Years of Trying to Fix the Supreme Court: After seven years of trying, Fix the Court is chalking up fixes that are coming to fruition at the Supreme Court.” Tony Mauro has this post at his “The Marble Palace Blog.”

“Elites at Cert”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“6th Circuit Denies Initial En Banc Review of OSHA Vaccine-or-Test Mandate; Judge Jeffrey Sutton dissented, saying the case is ‘suitable for an extraordinary procedure'”: Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal has this report on today’s order (accompanied by a concurrence and two dissents) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denying en banc review by an evenly divided vote.

And in other coverage, at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a post titled “Sixth Circuit Refuses to Hear Challenges to OSHA Vaccinate-or-Test Rule En Banc; A majority of judges on the court did not vote in favor of the petitions for initial hearing en banc, so the challenge will be heard by a three-judge panel.”

And Josh Blackman has a post titled “Sixth Circuit Splits 8-8 on Initial En Banc in OSHA Vaccine Cases; The three judges who did not sign an opinion may be on the three-judge panel: Gibbons, Griffith, and Stranch.”

“Ghislaine Maxwell’s judge, up for appellate court promotion, faces U.S. Senate panel”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

And Tom McParland of New York Law Journal reports that “Nathan Faces Grilling From Republican Senators in Hearing for 2nd Circuit Nomination; ‘I gave that up,’ Nathan said when pressed about her experience as a lawyer in the Obama administration and in Democratic politics.”

You can view the video of today’s U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing via this link.

“Newsom’s Texas-style gun ploy is an emotionally satisfying, and very bad, idea”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“What I Got Wrong About Brett Kavanaugh and Abortion: The justice had sounded eager to prevent states from nullifying constitutional rights. Why did he change his mind?” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Supreme Court should be reformed. But court packing is a terrible idea.” The Washington Post has published this editorial.

“The Supreme Court Is Playing Constitutional Calvinball; If liberals try to apply the logic of the Texas abortion ruling to their own favored causes, they might be in for a rude surprise”: Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The one good thing that could come from Gavin Newsom trolling the Supreme Court: There are worse things than a hypocritical Court.”

“Biden gets three seats to fill on 4th, 6th Circuits as judges take senior status”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Judge’s stock portfolio didn’t taint class rulings: tuna plaintiffs to 9th Circuit.” Alison Frankel of Reuters has this report.

“What Brett Kavanaugh Didn’t Mention when He Talked About Reversing Roe: Yes, the court has ignored precedent before, but never to take away a constitutional right.” Law professor Kimberly Wehle has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Could Ocean City’s topless ordinance head to the Supreme Court? The latest legal battle.” Emily Lytle of The Salisbury (Md.) Daily Times has this report.

“Conservatives may control the Supreme Court until the 2050s; Overturning Roe v. Wade may just be the beginning, our research suggests”: Professors Charles Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Clarence Thomas: Be Careful What You Wish For.” Sherry F. Colb has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“With Roe at Risk, Justices Explore a New Way to Question Precedents; A new study traces a trend at the Supreme Court: looking to what the lawyers had argued in assessing whether to follow a precedent”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court Allows Vaccine Mandate for New York Health Care Workers; Doctors and nurses challenged a state coronavirus vaccine requirement that had medical but not religious exemptions, saying it violated their right to free exercise of their faiths”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court won’t stop vaccine mandate for New York health care workers.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the dissent therefrom, at this link.

“Last Week’s Texas Ruling Will Prove to Be a Wipeout for Abortion Rights”: Dennis Aftergut and law professor Laurence H. Tribe have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Judge Alison Nathan — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Court Reform Is Dead! Long Live Court Reform! The Commission on the Supreme Court’s findings may end up helping to set reform in motion, rather than stopping it in its tracks.” Law professors Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“We served on the Supreme Court commission. Term limits and court-packing are bad ideas.” Thomas B. Griffith and David F. Levi have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Supreme Court Likes Precedent — When It Backs Conservatives; The decision to leave Texas’ anti-abortion law in effect underscores how the new conservative majority is exercising power”: Law professor Aziz Huq has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Supreme Court sets date with Oklahoma to respond to 40-plus McGirt appeals”: Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has this report.

“Supreme Court may decide soon whether to reconsider McGirt”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.

“The Supreme Court isn’t well. The only hope for a cure is more justices.” Former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner and law professor Laurence H. Tribe have this essay online at The Washington Post.

And online at Time magazine, law professor Kermit Roosevelt III has an essay titled “I Spent 7 Months Studying Supreme Court Reform. We Need to Pack the Court Now.”

“The nation needed a strong defense of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court did this instead.” The Washington Post has published this editorial.

“Don’t be fooled: The Supreme Court’s Texas abortion decision is a big defeat for Roe v. Wade; Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion is sneaky, underhanded, and a big blow to abortion rights.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Texas abortion providers ‘won’ in court Friday. The future is bleaker than ever. The decision let a challenge to the law proceed but limited whom the providers can sue.” Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“What should happen if abortion returns to the states? An expert explains; If the U.S. Supreme Court tosses Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, any bans in effect before the decision should be struck down, a Montgomery County attorney suggests.” John L. Micek has this essay online at the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.