“In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons”: Liam Dillon of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Texas Abortion Decision Is a Disaster for Constitutional Rights; In the guise of a compromise decision, five justices gave states a road map to nullify fundamental liberties”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Also online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “John Roberts Has Lost Control; The real takeaway from the court’s rulings on the Texas abortion cases is that the chief justice has lost his influence.”

And Jeremy Stahl has a jurisprudence essay titled “If John Roberts Really Wants to Save the Court, He Should Retire.”

“The Supreme Court Can’t Hide Its Contempt for Abortion Rights Any Longer; By allowing a husk of a legal challenge to Texas SB8 to go forward, the conservative justices send the strongest signal yet that Roe v. Wade‘s days are numbered”: Jay Willis has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“The Thomas court: After 30 years of waiting, Justice Clarence Thomas has seniority and a court shaped in his likeness.” Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Reflections of a Supreme Court Commissioner”: Law professor William Baude has posted this essay at SSRN.

“Supreme Court conservatives may have their chance to end affirmative action at universities”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court Allows Challenge to Texas Abortion Law but Leaves It in Effect; The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, was drafted to evade review in federal court and has been in effect since September”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report. And J. David Goodman and Ruth Graham of The New York Times report that “Small Court Victories Change Nothing for Women Seeking Abortions in Texas; A Texas statute that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy was seemingly undercut by two court rulings, but the reality on the ground has not changed.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says Texas abortion providers may proceed with challenge of six-week ban, leaves law in effect for now.” And Hannah Knowles and María Luisa Paúl of The Washington Post have an article headlined “Abortion bans and sanctuary plans: States are preparing for a possible future without Roe v Wade.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court leaves Texas abortion law in effect, allows only a narrow challenge to it.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rules Abortion Clinics Can Challenge Texas Law; State law remains in effect for now; Texas has banned procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court continues fight against Texas six-week abortion ban but leaves law in place.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court limits early challenges to Texas abortion ban law; Roberts says ruling punts on court’s constitutional powers.” And Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “Biden blasts Supreme Court on Texas abortion law, urges Congress to codify Roe v. Wade.”

Madlin Mekelburg of The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Supreme Court allows clinics to challenge Texas’ abortion law, lets Senate Bill 8 stand.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t stop Texas abortion ban, but lets clinics sue.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court leaves Texas abortion curbs intact but allows suit.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court ‘Green-Lit’ Texas Abortion Ban, Clinic Lawyers Say.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court says challenge to Texas’ ban on abortion can proceed, allows law to remain in effect for now; The court didn’t rule on the merits of the law, but rather on whether the abortion providers’ lawsuit can move forward.” And Rebecca Shabad of NBC News reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law; Roberts joined the high court’s three liberal justices in discussing the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.”

Ariane de Vogue and Tierney Sneed of CNN report that “Supreme Court lets Texas abortion law continue but says providers can sue.” In addition, de Vogue reports that “Abortion rights supporters see little to cheer in new Supreme Court opinion.”

Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court lets challenge to Texas abortion law proceed, allows law to remain in effect; Ruling comes as Supreme Court considers major Mississippi abortion case, too.”

Reese Oxner of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court lets enforcement of Texas abortion law continue but allows legal challenges to proceed; The court allowed the suit to continue on an 8-1 decision; Abortion providers will resume seeking to block the law as it progresses through lower court proceedings.” James Barragán and Cassandra Pollock of The Texas Tribune have an article headlined “‘Every constitutional right is now at risk’: Legal experts warn Supreme Court action on Texas abortion law could lead to copycats; Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority was straying from the court’s precedent to step in when state laws chill the exercise of constitutional rights while allowing other states to follow suit.” And Karen Brooks Harper of The Texas Tribune has an article headlined “‘This is a dark day’: For Texas abortion providers, U.S. Supreme Court ruling feels apocalyptic; Even though a legal fight continues, providers warn that abortion clinics could eventually have to shut down since enforcement of the law can continue.”

Josh Gerstein and Alice Miranda Ollstein report that “SCOTUS allows clinics’ challenge to Texas abortion ban to proceed; The court’s ruling allows for some cases brought by opponents of the law to proceed but closed major avenues for legal challenges, including one sought by the Biden administration.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court allows abortion providers to sue over Texas law.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Revived A Constitutional Challenge To Texas’s Six-Week Abortion Ban; The justices declined to let the Justice Department go ahead with its suit, however.”

Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Abortion providers get Supreme Court backing to fight Texas ban; Without tacking the merits of the law banning abortions upon the detection of a fetal heartbeat, the high court looked only at what state actors are proper defendants to the litigation.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion law as legal fights move forward.”

In commentary, The Los Angeles Times has published an editorial titled “The Supreme Court’s ruling on a Texas abortion law won’t restore access to abortion anytime soon.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an essay titled “Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law puts all of our constitutional rights in jeopardy.”

And The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “The Supreme Court’s Abortion Standing: The merits of the Texas law weren’t at issue, and the majority is right to block most pre-enforcement federal lawsuits.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463, at this link.

Programming note: At 10 a.m. eastern time on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more opinions in argued cases. You can access the opinion or opinions via this link just as soon as the Court posts them online. I will be traveling for much of Friday, and thus additional posts will not appear here until late Friday afternoon at the earliest.

“State judge declares Texas abortion law unconstitutional — but does not stop it from being enforced; The fate of the statute remains uncertain; An appeal to the ruling is already underway, and an opinion on the law from the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending”: Reese Oxner and Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune have this report on a ruling that the District Court for the 98th Judicial District in Travis County, Texas issued today.

“Court Packing Is Discreditable as Ever; Judicial independence is too important to sacrifice for a majority’s temporary political advantage”: Professor Keith E. Whittington will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Trump White House records can be released in Jan. 6 probe pending Supreme Court review, appeals court rules; Former president seeks to keep White House papers from congressional committee investigating Capitol riot in first legal case testing whether a sitting president can waive a predecessor’s claim of executive privilege”: Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Shield Material From Jan. 6 Inquiry; A three-judge panel held that Congress’s oversight powers, backed by President Biden’s decision not to invoke executive privilege over the material, outweighed Mr. Trump’s residual secrecy powers.”

Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Rejects Trump Bid to Block Records From House Jan. 6 Panel; Former president provided no basis for stopping National Archives from giving records to committee probing pro-Trump Capitol riot, judges rule.”

And Emily Zantow of The Washington Times reports that “Court orders Trump to hand over records to Jan. 6 committee.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Architecture and the First Amendment Before the Supreme Court; Eleventh Circuit found that architectural design would not be understood as protected speech”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a petition for writ of certiorari pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Ninth Circuit Conservatives Use Muscle to Signal Supreme Court”: Andrew Wallender and Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law have this report.

“Andy Warhol Foundation Asks Supreme Court to Review Prince Pop Art Dispute; Warhol’s estate says there is a ‘cloud of legal uncertainty over an entire genre of visual art’ after an appeals court found his image of Prince to be too visually similar to Lynn Goldmith’s photograph for the difference in their artistic meanings to be legally relevant”: Ashley Cullins of The Hollywood Reporter has this article.

And Alex Greenberger of ARTNews reports that “Warhol Foundation Seeks Supreme Court Review of Lynn Goldsmith’s Prince Portraits Case.”

You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“If the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade: Yes, the end of Roe would disrupt U.S. politics and the idea that no liberal policy can ever change.” Columnist Daniel Henninger has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Episode 49: Roe Roe Roe — Stare and Stenchy.” You can access today’s new installment of law professor Akhil Reed Amar‘s podcast, “Amarica’s Constitution,” via this link.

“California plans to be abortion sanctuary if Roe overturned”: Adam Beam of The Associated Press has this report.

“Federal Courts Aren’t Royal Ones: The judiciary should make it harder for judges to influence the selection of their successors.” Laurie Lin and David Lat have this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“SG Files Brief in Harvard Affirmative Action Case, Teeing The Case For Review This Term. Guns, Abortion, and Affirmative Action in a single year. Why not?” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

You can access the Solicitor General’s amicus brief by invitation of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Women woefully absent in appellate oral arguments, 7th Circuit judge’s study finds”: Alison Frankel of Reuters has this news analysis.

I linked to the study Monday in this post.

“Supreme Court Seems Wary of Ban on State Aid to Religious Schools; The case, concerning a tuition program in Maine, seemed likely to extend a winning streak at the court for parents seeking public funds for religious education”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court leans in favor of requiring taxpayer funding for some religious schools.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Arguments on State Funds for Religious Schools; Case challenges Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from voucher program covering rural areas without public schools.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court conservatives skeptical of Maine policy that blocks state funding for religious schools.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Justices skeptical of Maine’s public education program that blocks religious schools.”

Megan Gray of The Portland Press Herald reports that “Supreme Court signals support of public tuition for religious schools in Maine case; The plaintiffs say a state program of tuition reimbursement — for students whose towns have no high school — unfairly discriminates against people based on their religious beliefs.”

Judy Harrison of The Bangor Daily News reports that “Legal experts think Maine is bound to lose its religious school funding case.”

And at Education Week, Mark Walsh has a report headlined “Religious Schools and State Aid: What to Glean From a Lively Supreme Court Argument.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Carson v. Makin, No. 20-1088.

“The Supreme Court Faces a Voting Paradox”: Online at The New York Times, Peter Coy has an essay that begins, “There is a chance — not a likelihood, but a chance — that the decision the Supreme Court reaches on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will be confusing, inconsistent and even paradoxical.”

“The Origins of Supreme Court Question Selection”: Law professor Ben Johnson has posted this article, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review, at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Justice Kavanaugh’s Misdirection Plays in the Mississippi Abortion Case”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

Also online at Justia’s Verdict, Austin Sarat and Dennis Aftergut have an essay titled “After Roe, The Coming Fight to End All Abortions Everywhere.”

“Abortion, Guns, and the Irrelevance of Text to Constitutional Law”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“The death penalty cases before the Supreme Court that could keep innocent people in prison; Arizona wants justices to make a ruling that would jeopardize our Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at NBC News.

“Supreme Court Justice Jeff Hughes’ lawsuit against The Advocate can move forward, court rules”: Andrea Gallo of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has this report on a ruling that the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, issued yesterday.

“A would-be justice makes his Supreme Court debut”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Merrick Garland finally made his Supreme Court debut on Tuesday. Not in a justice’s black robe, but wearing the striped pants and jacket with tails reserved for government lawyers appearing before the court.”

“Biden’s Supreme Court Packers Pack Up; Their report on adding Justices puts the issue in the President’s court”: This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“No, the Constitution is not ‘neutral’ on abortion”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“‘Court Packing’ Issue Divides Commission Appointed by Biden; The bipartisan group voted 34 to 0 to send the president a report analyzing ideas like Supreme Court expansion, but it declined to take a stand”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Biden’s Supreme Court commission endorses final report noting bipartisan public support for term limits.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Commission Approves Report on Supreme Court Amid Partisan Differences; Experts praise process of exploring debates over high court’s makeup and role without resolving them.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court commission submits report to White House with no recommendation on ‘packing.’”

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Biden’s Supreme Court panel doesn’t recommend adding justices or making other major changes.”

“Trump had wanted to pick Amy Coney Barrett instead of Brett Kavanaugh for second Supreme Court opening, former chief of staff says”: Felicia Sonmez of The Washington Post has this report.

“Supreme Court Expansion Clamor Resumes as Biden Commission Wraps”: Greg Stohr and Jennifer Epstein of Bloomberg News have this report.

“How Biden Is Reshaping The Courts”: Elena Mejía and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux of FiveThirtyEight have this report.

“Justice Kavanaugh’s Empty Democratic Promise: Returning abortion to the states doesn’t put power into the hands of voters in much of the country.” David Litt has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, contains this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, headlined “The Practical Challenges of Returning Abortion Rights to Legislative Control.”