“The curious case of the clerk and the racist texts”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this new essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court to hear Ted Cruz challenge to campaign finance law; McConnell argued it is an ‘ideal opportunity’ for justices to wipe out the 2002 law”: Todd Ruger of Roll Call has this report.

“Texas Abortion Law Could Stay in Effect for Months After U.S. Appeals Court Ruling; Appeals court holds Texas Supreme Court should weigh in on unanswered questions before challenge to law can move forward”: Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of Indiana’s ‘revenge porn’ law”: Dan Carden of The Times of Munster, Indiana has this report.

Niki Kelly of The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana reports that “Indiana’s revenge-porn law upheld; State high court unanimous in Steuben County case.”

And Katie Stancombe of The Indiana Lawyer has a report headlined “Justices: Indiana’s ‘revenge porn’ statute constitutional.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Indiana at this link.

“U.S. Supreme Court carries over decision on whether to take McGirt appeals”: Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has this report.

“Gorsuch declines to wear mask, as bench-mate Sotomayor works from her office”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Divisions at the U.S. Supreme Court are playing out in differences among the justices”: Nina Totenberg had this follow-up audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Penn law dean starts process that could lead to sanctions on professor Amy Wax; In a noon email to the law school community, Dean Ted Ruger said he would invoke a faculty review process, which must occur before any action, major or minor, could be taken”: Susan Snyder of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“A New (Read Old) And Improved 14th Amendment? Reviewing Barnett and Bernick’s ‘The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment.'” Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“An Error in Justice Gorsuch’s Concurrence in the OSHA Vaccine Mandate Case; The Justice claimed OSHA took a past position that the agency did not actually take”: Patterico has this post at his Substack site, “The Constitutional Vanguard.”

“Federal appeals court refuses rehearing in challenge to SDUSD vaccine mandate”: Morgan Cook of The San Diego Union-Tribune has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Conservative appellate justices want Supreme Court to take up San Diego schools’ COVID rules.”

And Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Hearing in Vaccination Case; 10 Dissenters Say That Allowing Secular Exemptions but Not Religious Ones Requires Strict Scrutiny; They Maintain That Heed Is Not Being Taken of U.S. Supreme Court’s April 9 Decision.”

You can access Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring in and dissenting from that denial, at this link.

“FAA Must Explain Ruling to Pilot Who Accidentally Had Beer”: Bernie Pazanowski pf Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a redacted decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued Friday.

According to the opinion, the pilot consumed pulled pork that a restaurant prepared by cooking it in beer, even though the restaurant’s menu’s description of this item contained no mention of beer.

“Supreme Court justices aren’t ‘scorpions,’ but not happy campers either”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases but requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

And in Trustees of New Life in Christ Church v. Fredericksburg, No. 21-164, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.