“Bar association decries Supreme Court ad as false; Republican group doubles down”: Jim Gaines of The Dayton Daily News has this report.

“A controversial election theory at the Supreme Court is tied to a disputed document”: Hansi Lo Wang of NPR has this report.

“When should Supreme Court members bench themselves? New cases reignite the recusal debate.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“A Federal Judge Calls Clarence Thomas’ Bluff on Gun Rights and Originalism”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Originalism on Trial at the Supreme Court”: Online at Slate, law professor Aaron Tang has a jurisprudence essay that begins, “When opposing lawyers make similarly unsympathetic arguments at the Supreme Court, who should win? In an important case that will be argued on Tuesday, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the answer will turn on a surprising question: whether the conservative justices are evenhanded — or instead hypocritical—adherents to their preferred theory of originalism.”

“James Ho’s Yale Law Boycott Only Matters If Students Allow It; The Yale administration’s doomed attempts to appease James Ho are part of the proud law school tradition of sucking up to established power”: Steve Kennedy has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“‘Judges gone wild’: Trump-appointed judge says too many write for Twitter; Judge Stephanos Bibas argues for succinct rulings to maintain public trust; Bibas to other judges: ‘Try to be on Twitter less than you otherwise would.'” Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.