“UC Hastings’ name change spawned a potential $1.7 billion lawsuit. Will it hold up in court?” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“12 years after landmark Prop. 8 trial, Supreme Court makes videos public”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Supreme Court Wrestles With Case on Pigs, Cruelty and Commerce; A California law requiring that pork sold in the state come from humanely raised pigs posed questions about how far states can go in affecting conduct outside their borders”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court weighs far-reaching effects of Calif. pork restrictions.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of California animal welfare law.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court justices divided over California law setting standards for pig enclosures.”

Jess Bravin and Patrick Thomas of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Hears Arguments on California’s Pig-Welfare Law; Pork industry says mandating more space for pregnant sows unfairly imposes state’s vision production practices elsewhere.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court majority questions California law regulating pig pens, pork products.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs states’ power to control out-of-state products in California pork case.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and the audio of today’s oral argument in National Pork Producers v. Ross, No. 21-468.

“How a Challenge to California’s Animal Cruelty Law Became a Stealth Abortion Case”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court seems absolutely flummoxed by a high-stakes case about pigs; National Pork Producers v. Ross presents difficult questions about when one state’s laws can impact life in other states.”

“Federal judges boycott Yale law grads, citing free speech concerns; Federal judge James Ho’s called announced he would boycott hiring law clerks from Yale Law School, with a second judge joining”: William Porayouw and Ines Chomnalez of The Yale Daily News have this report.

Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal reports that “Judges Push Back Against James Ho’s Call to Boycott Yale Law Clerks; A dozen unnamed federal judges told a news outlet last week that they would join Ho in not hiring Yale Law students, but other jurists have been more critical of the boycott.”

In commentary, Bloomberg Law columnist Vivia Chen has an essay titled “Yale Law Students Must Be Quaking in Their Boots; Judge James Ho’s boycott of Yale law students won’t make a dent in the school’s prestige; But it could do quite a number on our trust in the judiciary.”

And at “Dorf on Law,” Neil H. Buchanan has a blog post titled “Republican-Appointed Judges Try to Punish Yale for . . . Something.”

“Federal court leaders agree to refund fees for online records; The proposed settlement would resolve a long-running lawsuit aimed at reducing the cost to access court records through PACER, an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

Update: In other coverage, Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Federal court records users could see $100 million in refunds; A proposed settlement would end class action litigation over overcharging for court files.”

“How a Supreme Court case about Andy Warhol’s images of Prince could change the face of art; Artists aligned on both sides of the case are closely watching how the high court deals with a major copyright dispute involving silkscreens by Warhol and an original photograph of Prince from 1981”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs fetal personhood appeal”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Paul Clement’s New Firm Keeps Connection to Old Kirkland Cases”: Roy Strom of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Supreme Court to hear case that could raise price of pork”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court considers pork industry challenge to California animal welfare law; The case could have implications for the power of states to enforce laws that seek to regulate conduct outside their borders.”

“In battle against abortion rights, Kansas Supreme Court is the next target”: Law professor Amii Castle has this essay online at Kansas Reflector.

“Supreme Court to hear death row inmate Rodney Reed’s appeal for new DNA testing”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

And in commentary, online at The Nation, law professors Alexandra Klein and Brandon Hasbrouck have an essay titled “The Supreme Court Is Poised to Make It Even Harder to Challenge Wrongful Convictions; The court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Reed v. Goertz, a case in which the stakes are, quite literally, life or death.”

“U.S. Supreme Court mulls line between art and theft in Warhol case”: Blake Brittain of Reuters has this report.

“The Constitutional-State-Legislature Doctrine Is the Answer the Court Is Looking For; In Moore v. Harper, the justices should not side with the views of either party”: Law professors William Baude and Michael W. McConnell have this essay online at The Atlantic.