“A Supreme Court Case That Threatens the Mechanisms of Democracy: At stake in Moore v. Harper is the question of how elections should be run — and who should resolve the inevitable disputes when they arise.” Andrew Marantz has this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the December 19, 2022 issue of The New Yorker.

“A question to conservative Christians on gay marriage: Why draw the line here?” Columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“There is a path to save the Supreme Court from itself”: Columnist Jennifer Rubin has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Doctors and Lawyers Debate Meaning of Death as Families Challenge Practices; Changing the determination of brain death potentially affects organ donation”: Amy Dockser Marcus of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Judge says chief justice’s ‘cute phrase’ on racism not helpful in Va. case; Loudoun County parents are suing over ‘student equity ambassadors,’ saying the initiative discriminates against White conservatives and chills free speech”: Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post has this report.

“The New Landscape of the Abortion Fight; After the midterm elections, abortion rights advocates hope to harness public support for the long term, while abortion foes look to advance new laws in sympathetic courts and legislatures”: Kate Zernike has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Illinois Supreme Court makes history with female majority on bench”: Jerry Nowicki of Capitol News Illinois has this report.

“Justice best served by leaving intact a conflicted judge’s ruling: 5th Circuit.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a per curiam ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Box around Christopher Columbus statue in South Philadelphia must be removed, Commonwealth Court rules; It’s the latest development in the lengthy battle over the statue, which became a flash point and was covered with plywood amid racial justice protests in June 2020”: Jesse Bunch of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

“Raniere, Bronfman lose federal appeals in NXIVM case; Raniere, the cult leader and convicted sex trafficker, will continue to serve 120-year sentence; Bronfman will serve nearly 7-year sentence”: Robert Gavin of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.

And Ben Feuerherd of The New York Post reports that “Appeals court upholds sentences for NXIVM sex cult leaders Keith Raniere, Clare Bronfman.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Catholic Groups Secure Block on Transgender Care Mandate”: Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Kaelan Deese of Washington Examiner reports that “Appeals court rules Catholic medical centers can’t be forced to perform transgender surgeries.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“Texas Doctor Who Violated Abortion Law Wins Dismissal of Suit; Suit was filed under law allowing private policing of statute; San Antonio doctor wrote op-ed detailing his violation of law”: Madlin Mekelburg of Bloomberg News has this report.

And Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas state court throws out lawsuit against doctor who violated abortion law; The court’s ruling does not overturn the 2021 law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy; It also does not impact the near-total ban on abortion that went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.”

“The Respect for Marriage Act Is Also a Victory for Same-Sex-Marriage Opponents; It favors the rights of religious groups over those of gay couples — and, if Obergefell were to be overruled, it would create two classes of marriage”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.

“Progressives Need to Support Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson”: At the “Balkinization” blog, Lawrence B. Solum has a guest post that begins, “A third wave of progressive originalism is now well underway.”

“Making PACER court records system free wouldn’t add to deficit, CBO says”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“State Battles on Abortion Access Are Ahead in the New Year; Uncertain political backdrop, ongoing litigation loom over states whose abortion laws remain in flux”: Laura Kusisto of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Ex-Antiabortion Activist Tells House Panel of Effort to Sway Supreme Court; Operation urging conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade is recounted”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article headlined “At hearing, Jim Jordan ensnares Democrats’ witness who accused Justice Alito of leaking 2014 ruling.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “SCOTUS whistleblower admits incident in his book ‘possibly’ did not happen, then Jordan proves it didn’t; After intense questioning, Jordan provided a transcript and audio recording that contradicted Schenck’s story.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “House hearing airs ethics allegations against Supreme Court; Democrats showcased a former evangelical leader who led efforts to ‘wine and dine’ justices.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Sarah McCammon had an audio segment titled “Former evangelical activist says he ‘pushed the boundaries’ in Supreme Court dealings.”

“Special Master’s Review in Trump Case Ends as Appeal Court’s Ruling Takes Effect; A federal judge in Florida had shocked experts by intervening after the F.B.I. seized sensitive files from the former president’s residence and club”: Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer of The New York Times have this report.

“Fed. Cir. Permits Funding Probes in Delaware Patent Cases”: Kelcee Griffis of Bloomberg Law has this report on a non-precedential order that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“Judicial security measure included in U.S. House-passed defense policy bill”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has a report that begins, “Tucked into the 4,000-plus page annual defense policy bill that cleared the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday is a long-stalled bill to bolster federal judges’ security and privacy by shielding their personal information online.”

And Madison Alder and Isaiah Poritz of Bloomberg Law report that “Tweaked Judge Security Measure Passed in House Defense Bill.”

“New York can continue to enforce state gun control law, appeals court rules”: Ben Feuerherd of The New York Post has a report that begins, “New York can continue to enforce a state law that bans guns from ‘sensitive’ places pending its appeal of a ruling that struck down aspects of the measure, a federal appeals court panel said Wednesday.”

“Advocate tells lawmakers of ‘stealth’ efforts to influence Supreme Court; The Rev. Robert Schenck, a former antiabortion activist, testified as Democrats and transparency advocates seek ethics overhaul”: Ann E. Marimow and  Emma Brown of The Washington Post have this report.

And Gram Slattery and Nate Raymond of Reuters have a report headlined “Pastor to Congress: 2014 Supreme Court leak pushed limits of Christian ethics.”

Update: In other coverage, Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “GOP Judiciary Committee Members Skewered Leader of Influence Scheme Targeting Conservative Justices; Republicans called the former leader of Faith in Action a ‘pathetic grifter’ and a ‘documented liar’ over claims he made that Justice Samuel Alito leaked the court’s Hobby Lobby decision in 2014.”

Garçon, bring me the definitions of “and”: On Tuesday, a divided en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its ruling in United States v. Garcon.

In coverage of the ruling, Orlando Montoya of Georgia Public Broadcasting reports that “Drug sentencing ruling hinges on definition of simple, common word.”

Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “‘And’ means ‘and,’ Atlanta federal appeals court rules.”

At his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Douglas A. Berman has a post titled “En banc Eleventh Circuit now gives broad reading to FIRST-STEP-amended mandatory-minimum safety valve provision.”

And at “The SDFLA Blog,” John R. Byrne has a post titled “‘And’ Means ‘And’ (Or does it mean or?).”

“The Instant Replay Booth — The old adage is true: The best way to win an appeal is to win in the trial court.” You can access the latest installment of California Court of Appeal Justice William W. Bedsworth‘s “A Criminal Waste of Space” column at this link.

“So Much Wasted Time in the Independent State Legislature Oral Argument”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Will Baude has a post titled “The New Supreme Court Oral Argument Dynamic.”

Two federal appellate judges who apparently crave attention, and a journalist willing to give it to them: At his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site, David Lat has a post titled “Free Speech, Wokeness, And Cancel Culture In The Legal Profession: Judges Lisa Branch and James Ho shared their insights with me in a written interview.”

“Supreme Court Faces Increasing Scrutiny From Congress After Leaks; The House Judiciary Committee is set to hear from a whistle-blower who says he was tipped off about a religious freedom ruling”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.

At 10 a.m. eastern time tomorrow, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Undue Influence: Operation Higher Court and Politicking at SCOTUS.” The hearing will be live-streamed on YouTube.

“My column was misconstrued in a Supreme Court brief”: Columnist Robin Givhan has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“What Difference Would It Make If the Supreme Court in the Moore v. Harper Case Embraced the Bush v. Gore Concurrence Rather Than a Full-Throated Independent State Legislature Theory?” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Trump told crowd to ‘fight like hell’ before riot. Can he be sued?” Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post has this report.

Jacqueline Thomsen of Reuters reports that “Trump asks U.S. appeals court to block civil Jan. 6 lawsuits.”

And Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Federal appeals court considers Trump’s plea to grant him immunity from Capitol riot lawsuits.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court Seems Split Over Case That Could Transform Federal Elections; The justices are considering whether to adopt the ‘independent state legislature’ theory, which could give state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court majority questions massive shift of election authority.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court hints at a narrow win for GOP in major election law dispute.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Blocking State Courts From Reviewing Congressional District Maps; North Carolina legislators say the Constitution gives them authority over U.S. House electoral maps, leaving state courts powerless.”

John Fritze of USA Today has a report headlined “‘Big consequences’: Supreme Court grapples with case some warn could upend federal elections.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court justices skeptical of unchecked state power over federal elections.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271.

“Welcome to the Supreme Court’s hypothetical Christmas mall village!” Columnist Alexandra Petri has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“By appointing more than half the state’s judges, Baker has reshaped the judiciary from the top down”: Matt Stout of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Can SCOTUS Prevent Free Speech from Swallowing Anti-discrimination Law?” Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Quick thoughts on 303”: Howard Wasserman has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”