“Pennsylvania Senate Race May Turn on Supreme Court Order Over Mail Ballots; Elections officials at odds over counting undated mail ballots; Legal challenges almost certain after November midterms”: Ryan Teague Beckwith of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Supreme Court Urged to Leave StarKist Antitrust Ruling in Place”: Mike Leonard of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Texas Social-Media Law Put on Hold Pending Supreme Court Review; Appeals court grants request by platforms like Twitter, Meta; Companies claim content-moderation law is unconstitutional”: Madlin Mekelburg of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court put on hold a Texas law banning some forms of content moderation on social media while a trade group representing industry giants petitions the US Supreme Court to review its challenge.”

“Indiana Supreme Court to review abortion lawsuit after lower court froze near-total ban”: Johnny Magdaleno of The Indianapolis Star has this report.

And Megan Messerly of Politico reports that “Indiana Supreme Court allows abortions to continue pending January hearing; While it declined to lift the injunction, the Indiana Supreme Court did agree to Attorney General Todd Rokita’s request to take the case and scheduled oral arguments for January.”

“A little-watched Montana race has become a contentious abortion fight”: Karin Brulliard of The Washington Post has this report.

“Why the Supreme Court is taking on so many politically divisive cases”: John Kruzel of The Hill has this report.

“Prince Photo or Just Formerly Known as One? Supreme Court Weighs Warhol’s Art; In a lively argument over copyright law that included many references to pop culture, the justices struggled to determine when a new work transforms an older one”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Warhol, Prince and a Supreme Court debate over ‘fair use’; The justices are evaluating whether Andy Warhol violated copyright law by basing his art on an image of Prince used without the photographer’s permission.”

David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court copyright case: Did Warhol images of Prince cross the line?”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Andy Warhol’s Image of Prince Comes Before Supreme Court; Justices hear intellectual property case pitting pop artist’s foundation against photographer whose 1981 photo of musical star was basis for Warhol’s later work.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court debates Warhol copyright case with broad implications for art, pop culture.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs Warhol’s ‘Prince Series’ against copyright claims.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and the audio of today’s oral argument in Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869.

“Yale Law trumpets free speech stance amid judge’s clerk-boycott push”: Karen Sloan and Nate Raymond of Reuters have this report.

And in commentary, online at The Washington Post, columnist Paul Waldman has an essay titled “A judge’s attack on Yale explains the right’s ‘cancel culture’ ruse.”

“The court of art criticism is in session”: Mark Walsh has this “A View from the Courtroom” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“‘Heartbreaking’ stories go untold, doctors say, as employers ‘muzzle’ them in wake of abortion ruling”: Elizabeth Cohen, Justin Lape, and Danielle Herman of CNN have this report.

“Ohio appeals order blocking six-week abortion ban”: Jessie Balmert of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

“A Message to Our Alumni on Free Speech at Yale Law School”: Yale Law School has posted online this message from Dean Heather K. Gerken. Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho is not an alumnus of Yale Law School, and thus the message clearly is not directed toward him.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Yale Law School, Judge Ho, Neutrals, and Secondary Boycotts; Even when there’s good reason to criticize universities, we should keep the students out of our battles.”

“Justices Ponder Implications of California’s Humane Welfare Standards for Pigs”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

And at Balls and Strikes, Yvette Borja has a post titled “How a Supreme Court Case About Pig Farms Could Shake Up the Fight For Abortion Access; National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is about much more than the conditions of porcine confinement.”

“Lawyers Group Asks Court to Punish an Author of Trump Electors Scheme; An ethics complaint in New York against Kenneth Chesebro is the latest example of legal troubles for lawyers who helped Donald J. Trump try to overturn the 2020 election”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

“A Requirement of Colorblindness in University Admissions is Constitutionally Unjustifiable and Impossible in Practice”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”