“RIP to the LSAT? Let’s Kill the Bar Exam, Too; The push to do away with the law school admissions exam has merit — and there’s no reason to stop there.” Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Morton’s and others brace as activists offer cash for SCOTUS sightings”: Emily Heil and Tim Carman of The Washington Post have this report.

“The Harshest Abortion Restrictions Are Yet to Come; The pro-life movement is now focused on three major strategies at the state level”: Law professors David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouché have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“As abortion ban is reinstated, doctors describe ‘chilling effect’ on women’s care”: Emily Woodruff of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

“1791 or 1868? The Question Itself Reveals a Contradiction Between Originalism and Jot-for-Jot Incorporation.” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Can Pigs Still Fly?” At the “Balkinization” blog, Gerard N. Magliocca has a post that begins, “Next Term the Supreme Court will hear National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, a Dormant Commerce Clause case challenging the validity of California’s Proposition 12.”

“Even if Republicans Outlaw Abortion, Americans Will Soon Rebel”: Professor Michael Kazin has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Chief Judge Resigns at Crucial Time for New York’s Top Court; Judge Janet DiFiore, whose legacy includes a sweeping opinion on gerrymandering, will leave at the end of August after more than six years on the court”: Jesse McKinley and Benjamin Weiser of The New York Times have this report.

And Frank G. Runyeon of Law360 has an exclusive report headlined “NY Chief Judge Faces Ethics Probe As She Leaves Office.”

“What Precedents Would Clarence Thomas Overturn Next?” Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen is David Remnick’s guest on today’s new episode of The New Yorker’s “Politics and More” podcast.

“Pro-religion decisions of 2022 had Christianity front and center; In two key rulings, the Supreme Court used religious liberty to break up ‘the wall of separation’ that Thomas Jefferson said should exist between church and state”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Disabled plaintiffs suing Ollie’s cry foul over 3rd Circuit’s class decertification”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“New SG Filing on ‘Universal Relief’ Under the Administrative Procedure Act”: Samuel Bray has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“6-3 is the new SCOTUS 5-4”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“For a Supreme Court justice, it can’t be ‘privacy for me’ and no right of protest for thee; How can privacy protect a justice’s meal, but not a woman’s choice to have a baby?” Columnist Joan Vennochi has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“US Supreme Court Report Card: How the Third Circuit Fared in the 2021-22 Term (Part 1).” Tomorrow’s print edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, will contain this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column.

“Ketanji Brown Jackson, my friend; With all the news coming out of the Supreme Court in recent weeks, it was easy to miss the swearing in of its newest member; For me, the moment held deep personal significance”: Law professor Lisa A. Tucker has this essay online at The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Break Glass in Case of Emergency”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw, via this link. (I previously neglected to link to last week’s episode, titled “Smashing Precedents and Making Up Facts,” because it came out on July 4th and I was away on vacation last week.)

And yesterday’s new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast, featuring law professors Dan Epps and Will Baude, is titled “Settling of Scores.”

“What the liberal justices’ scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme court; Opinions from Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor send stark warning about increasingly radical court abandoning long-held principles”: Joan E Greve of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Biden’s abortion response curbed by fears of another Supreme Court showdown; Potential impact of high court leaves White House feeling restricted by what post-Roe actions it can take”: Adam Cancryn of Politico has this report.

“Democrats are overreacting about the Supreme Court”: Curt Levey has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“There is no conservative legal movement; Originalism, textualism and judicial restraint all got short shrift in this term’s major environmental-regulations decision”: Law professor Adrian Vermeule has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“How an upcoming Supreme Court case could upend 2024 election laws, lawsuits; At issue in the case out of North Carolina is whether rules for federal elections set by state legislatures can be reviewed by state courts; But a decision in the case could have far greater impacts”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Hansi Lo Wang had an audio segment titled “A Supreme Court decision could radically reshape presidential elections.”

In commentary, online at The Atlantic, Thomas Wolf and Ethan Herenstein have an essay titled “The Case That Could Blow Up American Election Law; A radical and baseless legal theory could upend the country’s most essential democratic process.”

And at his “The Constitutional Vanguard” Substack site, Patterico has a post titled “In Defense of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Part 1; The ‘radical’ idea that can be found only in the minds of crazed Federalist Society conservatives . . . and, oh yeah, also in the text of the Constitution itself.”