“Alleged Plan to Kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh Puts Focus on Bills to Improve Security; Republicans, Democrats say they want more protections for judges but differ on scope of new proposals”: Jan Wolfe and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

In jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Law professor Anita Bernstein has a jurisprudence essay titled “Alito’s Draft Opinion Obsesses Over 17th Century Abortion Law — and Gets It Completely Wrong.”

And Michael L. Rosin has a jurisprudence essay titled “Congress Has Never Considered Fetuses Persons Within the Meaning of the 14th Amendment.”

“The Workhorse of the Early Court: Bushrod Washington may have been the most faithful conservator of the Constitution, and the soundest legal mind on the early Court.” John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“More precedent shredding: The Supreme Court basically overruled itself in decision shielding Border Patrol officers.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Is emotional distress a concrete injury after TransUnion? 7th Circ divided.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Conservatives, your radical legal revolution will not go unchallenged”: Columnist Paul Waldman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Amy Coney Barrett received $425,000 book payment, records show; New financial-disclosure reports released by the Supreme Court show the justices were paid thousands to teach at law schools and give speeches”: Ann E. Marimow and Emma Brown of The Washington Post have this report.

“Harvard-led Citation Cartel Rakes in Millions from Bluebook Manual Monopoly, Masks Profits; The Uniform System of Citation made $16.0 million in net profits between 2011 and 2020”: Dan Stone has this post at his Substack site.

“The New Abortion Bans: Almost No Exceptions for Rape, Incest or Health; Most of the state abortion prohibitions that would go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned do not contain carve-outs that were once widely supported by abortion opponents.” Jan Hoffman of The New York Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Allows Undated Ballots in Pennsylvania Election; A state law required mailed ballots to be accompanied by a signed and dated declaration, but a federal appeals court ruled that undated declarations sufficed”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Supreme Court, with 3 Noted Dissents, Won’t Interfere with Pennsylvania Race Requiring Counting of Undated but Timely Mail-In Ballots; Justice Alito Suggests Expeditious Review Before Next Elections.”

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

“The Indian Country Abortion Safe Harbor Fallacy”: Lauren van Schilfgaarde, Aila Hoss, Sarah Deer, Ann E. Tweedy, and Stacy Leeds have this post online at the LPE Project.

“Biden says he’s looking at executive orders on abortion rights if Supreme Court strikes down Roe”: Kate Sullivan and Betsy Klein of CNN have this report.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court issuing record number of 4-3 rulings; So far, the court’s 3 liberals are coming out on the winning end of those cases more often than not”: Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin Public Radio has this report.

“Pelosi: House to vote next week protecting Supreme Court justices and their families after man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home.” Devan Cole, Daniella Diaz, Kristin Wilson, and Sonnet Swire of CNN have this report.

“The Supreme Court Has a Nasty Surprise in Store for Business; By jettisoning the precedent that reaffirmed Roe, the justices will give lower courts and state legislators more license to force companies to take sides in political battles”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court Sides With Border Agent Accused of Using Excessive Force; In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices made it harder to sue federal officials for money in cases accusing them of violating the Constitution”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Ann E. Marimow has an article headlined “Supreme Court shields Border Patrol agent from excessive-force claim; In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority reinforced protections for government officials who are generally immune from civil lawsuits.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court shields border agents from lawsuits over excessive force.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Sides With Border Patrol in Canadian Border Search Case; Ruling cites lack of congressional action allowing lawsuits against federal officers.”

And John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rules against man who sued Customs agent for excessive force; Critics say the decision makes nearly it impossible to hold federal police accountable for excessive force; But a majority of the Supreme Court said that’s a job for Congress, not the federal courts.”

“Conjunction Disjunction in the Dobbs Draft; Does the Glucksberg test require a right to be ‘fundamental’ and ‘deeply rooted’ or ‘fundamental’ or ‘deeply rooted’?” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Five nominees to federal bench pushed to Senate vote; The Judiciary Committee gave a green light Thursday morning to two circuit court and three district court nominees”: Rose Wagner of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“A Dangerous Precedent: Law Professors Explain Jarkesy v. SEC.” You can access the video of today’s new episode of “The Problem With Jon Stewart” podcast, featuring law professors Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw as guests, on YouTube via this link.

“Newly released memos show DOJ weighed prosecuting newspapers in Pentagon Papers case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Rewriting the Rule for Rights”: At the “Balkinization” blog, Joseph Blass has a guest post that begins, “The right to an abortion is not the only constitutional rule rewritten in the leaked draft opinion for the upcoming case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Justice Alito also quietly slips in a three-letter word that would change the very criteria under which unenumerated rights receive constitutional protection.”

“The ‘Abandonment’ Defense to Criminal Attempt, and the Person Who Was Planning to Kill Justice Kavanaugh”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”