“Abortion and the Supreme Court: This is the moment for the Justices to turn the issue over to the voters.” This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Struggles Over Biden’s Bid to End ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program; Known formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols, the program, adopted during the Trump administration, requires some migrants to wait in Mexico while their cases are heard”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Nick Miroff of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court weighs Biden attempt to rescind Trump immigration policy.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court leans in favor of Trump over Biden in asylum border dispute.”

Jess Bravin and Michelle Hackman of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Weighs President’s Powers to Change Immigration Policy; The Biden administration is appealing a lower-court order requiring it to maintain the Trump-era Remain in Mexico program.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with ‘remain in Mexico’ policy as immigration erupts as midterm issue.”

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Justices challenge Biden administration’s catch-and-release policy.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Biden v. Texas, No. 21-954.

“U.S. judiciary can be sued over handling of sex harassment complaint — court”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

Because all Fourth Circuit judges were recused, the panel consisted of senior circuit judges from the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the manner in which the replacement judges were selected, leading to an interesting discussion of that process, beginning on page 46 of today’s decision.

“The Supreme Court seems fed up with a Trump judge who sabotaged Biden; Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is not secretary of homeland security, even though he might think he is”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Free speech scholars — and Elon Musk — urge Supreme Court to review SEC gag orders”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Ninth Circuit throws out vaccine mandate for California prison guards; The court overturned a judge’s finding that the state’s vaccination policy for prison staff amounted to deliberate indifference to inmates’ health”: Edvard Pettersson of Courthouse News Service has this report on an unpublished opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

And in other coverage, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “California does not have to require prison workers to get COVID vaccines, court rules.”

“Being a Lawyer Doesn’t Make You Immune From Criticism; Most lawyers make choices about who to represent, and how, and why; They should be held accountable for those choices”: Law professor G.S. Hans has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Neil Gorsuch Has Been Planning a Reactionary Revolution For a Long Time; As a federal appeals court judge in 2016, Gorsuch laid out how he’d help deconstruct the administrative state — if only a Republican president would promote him”: Joel Jacobsen has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“The Roberts Court and the Erasing of the Establishment Clause”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“In sequel to McGirt, justices will again review scope of state prosecutorial power in Indian country”: Matthew L.M. Fletcher has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Ketanji Brown Jackson Won’t Lose Her Seat If Breyer ‘Unretires’; The sitting Supreme Court justice is now contractually obligated to step down”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.