“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.”

“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.

“Thoughts On Judge Ho’s Clerkship Boycott”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jack Goldsmith has a guest post that begins, “My friend Judge James Ho recently announced that he is boycotting the hiring of law clerks from my alma mater, Yale Law School, because it ‘tolerates the cancellation of views’ and ‘actively practices it.’ I think this is a bad decision, and I hope it might be useful to say why.”

“Considering the Prospect of an Extended Vacancy on Pa.’s Highest Court”: This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will appear in tomorrow’s print edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Judges Across U.S. Expand Gun Rights, Taking Cues From Supreme Court; Courts are placing more emphasis on historical traditions, presenting new challenges for defending gun regulations”: Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“WA Supreme Court Justices participate in Q&A during their campus visit”: Zackery Bauder of The Gonzaga Bulletin has this report.

“Can SC execute by firing squad, electrocution? Supreme Court sets new date to decide.” John Monk of The State of Columbia, South Carolina has this report.

“Pork industry takes fight over California law to U.S. Supreme Court”: Leah Douglas of Reuters has this report.

And in commentary, online at The New York Times, Mark Essig has a guest essay titled “Pig Farming Doesn’t Have to Be This Cruel.”