“If Roe falls, some fear ripple effect on civil rights cases”: Lindsay Whitehurst of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “If the Supreme Court decides to overturn or gut the decision that legalized abortion, some fear that it could undermine other precedent-setting cases, including civil rights and LGBTQ protections.”

“Biden’s Supreme Court commission set to vote on final report”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this article.

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Biden’s Supreme Court panel wary of big changes.”

“Supreme Court poised to further open the door for taxpayer funding of religious schools”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear Maine case that could expand school voucher programs nationwide.”

“I Couldn’t Vote for Trump, but I’m Grateful for His Supreme Court Picks”: Erika Bachiochi has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Prepares to Vote on Final Report; A draft version of the document flagged deep disputes over court expansion while exploring how phasing in term limits might work”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “White House Commission Weighs In on Supreme Court; Scholars and legal advocates underscore ongoing debate over role and operation of high court.”

Ariane de Vogue and Paul LeBlanc of CNN report that “Biden Supreme Court commission’s draft report details ‘profound’ disagreement over adding seats to bench.”

And Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson and Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law report that “White House Supreme Court Commission Backs Modest Changes.”

You can access the Commission’s draft final report at this link.

“Judicial Notice (12.04.21): ‘Stench’; A deep dive into Dobbs, a major merger in Biglaw, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Judge Smith retiring but not quitting; As he turns 70, chief judge must step down, but plans to continue as senior jurist”: Phil Ray of The Altoona (Pa.) Mirror has this report.

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “3rd Circuit’s chief judge takes senior status, giving Biden chance to tilt court.”

“How Unappealing: An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap among Appellate Attorneys.” The American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession has published this report written by Seventh Circuit Judge Amy J. St. Eve and Jamie B. Luguri.

Any connection between the title of this report and the title of this blog remains to be determined.

“After Dobbs: What would the potential overturning of Roe portend for other substantive due process cases?” Sean Beienburg has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Inside the Arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority eyes overturning Roe v. Wade.” Julie Rikelman joined host Dahlia Lithwick on this week’s installment of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast.

“Supreme Court picks may be delayed by months; Temporary picks could fill the vacant seats on the Supreme Court in the meantime”: Yonah Jeremy Bob of The Jerusalem Post has this report.

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

And in Tucker v. City of Shreveport, No. 21–569, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.

“Both sides planning for new state-by-state abortion fight”: Ashraf Khalil of The Associated Press has this report.

“The Ghosts of Mississippi”: Columnist Charles M. Blow has this essay online at The New York Times.

“What an America Without Roe Would Look Like: Legal abortions would fall, particularly among poor women in the South and Midwest, and out-of-state travel and abortion pills would play a bigger role.” Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times have this report.

“After Success in Seating Federal Judges, Biden Hits Resistance; Senate Democrats vow to keep pressing forward with nominees, but they may face obstacles in states represented by Republicans”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.

“The Cell Phone Donut Hole in the Tracking Device Statute”: Retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith (S.D. Tex.) has this article in the Federal Courts Law Review.

“Dobbs and the Fate of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the abortion case, expected next June, will be a defining moment in the Right’s battle for the Constitution.” Law professor J. Joel Alicea has this essay online at City Journal.

“Barrett is wrong: Adoption doesn’t ‘take care of’ the burden of motherhood; This view of adoption and abortion has failed American women.” Gretchen Sisson has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“If the Supreme Court curtails abortion rights it could flip the script on the 2022 midterm elections”: Gregory Krieg and Rachel Janfaza of CNN have this report.

“Twin Republican strategies brought the antiabortion movement to the cusp of victory in the Supreme Court”: Michael Scherer of The Washington Post has this report.

“Critical Moment for Roe, and the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy; As justices consider Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law, scholars debate what a reversal of Roe v. Wade would mean for the court’s credibility”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Ginsburg once defined the court’s vision of women’s equality. Now Barrett does. The new justice sees no conflict between overturning Roe v. Wade and legal protection of women’s rights.” Law professor Mary Ziegler has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Sotomayor saw she couldn’t sway her colleagues. So she talked to us instead. The liberal justice signaled that the next round of the abortion fight might be political, not legal.” Law professor Melissa Murray has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Mississippi Abortion Case and the Fragile Legitimacy of the Supreme Court: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is an open challenge to the Court’s authority, and perhaps broadly reflects a spirit of legal self-help that is running through the land.” Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen will have this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the January 13, 2021 issue of The New Yorker.

“Bump-Stock Ban Remains as Appeals Court Splits on Gun Law”: Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law has this report.

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Bump stock ban remains intact after appeals court deadlocks.”

And Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Split en banc decision on bump stocks is a win for feds; An 8-8 split among Sixth Circuit judges over the classification of bump stocks as machine guns means a federal judge’s decision to grant the government deference in its interpretation of federal law will be reinstated.”

You can access yesterday’s order of an evenly divided en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirming the district court’s judgment, and the opinions accompanying it in support of affirmance and reversal, at this link.

“It’s time to say it: The conservatives on the Supreme Court lied to us all.” Columnist Paul Waldman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“In case you missed the abortion argument, here’s about how it went”: Columnist Alexandra Petri has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Abortion I Didn’t Have: I never thought about ending my pregnancy. Instead, at 19, I erased the future I had imagined for myself.” Merritt Tierce will have this article in this Sunday’s edition of The New York Times Magazine.

“How to Get Away With Manslaughter: The Supreme Court’s McGirt ruling opened a bizarre loophole for Oklahoma criminals.” This editorial will appear in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“State Court Expansion Is Becoming More Common — Especially When Republicans Are In Charge; Proposals to expand the U.S. Supreme Court often get dismissed as ‘radical’ or ‘unprecedented’; In many states, though, they are politics as usual”: Billy Corriher has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Future of abortion rights depends on a Supreme Court for which compromise seems elusive”: Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow have this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“What Roe Could Take Down With It: The logic being used against Roe could weaken the legal foundations of many rights Americans value deeply.” Law professor Kimberly Wehle has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Also online at The Atlantic, Adam Serwer has an essay titled “Republicans Hope Their Assault on Democracy Will Stop a Post-Roe Backlash; Conservatives on the Supreme Court have engineered a system that allows half the country’s population to be stripped of a fundamental constitutional right.”

“The stench at the Supreme Court: The science on which Roe v. Wade was based has not changed; What has changed is the court’s membership and their originalist interpretation of the Constitution.” Nancy Gertner has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

And online at The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley has an essay titled “What’s that you smell in the Supreme Court?“

“Amy Coney Barrett’s Adoption Myths :’They’re co-opting our lives and our stories.'” Irin Carmon has this post at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine.