“Supreme Court to Hear Case That Targets a Legal Shield of Tech Giants; The justices are set to hear a case challenging Section 230, a law that protects Google, Facebook and others from lawsuits over what their users post online”: David McCabe of The New York Times has this report.

Cat Zakrzewski and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court hears a case that could transform the internet; Oral arguments begin in Gonzalez v. Google, a landmark case tackling whether tech companies should be liable for harmful content their algorithms surface.”

John D. McKinnon of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Google Case Heads to Supreme Court With Powerful Internet Shield Law at Stake; Company’s defense against liability in 2015 Paris terrorist attack invokes ‘Magna Carta of the internet.’”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court for first time casts doubt on Section 230, the legal shield for Big Tech.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court weighs liability shield for internet giants.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “A family’s tragedy leads to U.S. Supreme Court social media showdown.”

Brian Fung of CNN has reports headlined “Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet” and “These 26 words ‘created the internet’; Now the Supreme Court may be coming for them.”

Bill Mears and Shannon Bream of Fox News report that “Supreme Court to weigh Google and Twitter internet free speech policies; The ruling could change how Americans hold social media companies liable for content posted by third-party providers.”

Rebecca Kern of Politico reports that “Big Tech is about to have an epic week in the Supreme Court; The stakes are high as the Supreme Court takes its first look at a law Republicans and Democrats have both criticized for giving too much protection to the tech industry.”

Paul Blumenthal of HuffPost reports that “This Supreme Court Case Could Decide The Future Of The Internet As We Know It; For the first time ever, the court will hear arguments over Section 230, the internet’s ‘Magna Carta.’”

Sam Baker and Ashley Gold of Axios report that “Big Tech’s future is up to a Supreme Court that doesn’t understand it.”

In commentary, online at The New York Times, Julia Angwin has an essay titled “It’s Time to Tear Up Big Tech’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.”

The Washington Post has published an editorial titled “The Supreme Court could throw the internet into chaos.”

And at Slate’s Future Tense, Daniel Johnson has an essay titled “A Supreme Court Case About ISIS and YouTube Could Change the Internet as We Know It.”

“Thoughts on Dubin v. United States and the Aggravated Identity Theft Statute; 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, this is your day in court”: Orin S. Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Least Incorrect”: You can access the new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast via this link.

“WaPo Columnist Says The Quiet Part Out Loud About Attacks On The Judiciary”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“15. The Prize Cases and the ‘Dual Theory’ of the Civil War; In upholding President Lincoln’s blockade of Confederate ports, the Supreme Court in March 1863 sustained his ‘dual theory’ of the Civil War; But only by a 5-4 vote”: Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Will the Supreme Court break the Internet?” You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Judicial Notice (02.18.23): Disrupted; An imperiled judicial nomination, a Biglaw firm’s big bet on AI, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Unequal Justice: Did Five Supreme Court Justices Lie About Abortion? In their auditions for the highest court in the land, one can argue that each of them was at least materially misleading.” Bill Blum has this essay online at The Progressive Magazine.

“The Activist Pastor Running to Remake the Wisconsin Supreme Court; At one point, Judge Everett Mitchell was a functionally illiterate teen running from trouble at home; Now he’s running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in one of the nation’s most consequential elections — with major implications for 2024”: Douglas Foster has this article online at Politico Magazine.

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Chuck Quirmbach had an audio segment titled “Top 2 vote getters in Wisconsin Supreme Court primary will face off in April.”

“A top Senate Democrat has an extraordinarily radical plan to deal with Trump’s worst judge; What if the Biden administration simply ignored court orders from the most partisan Republican judges?” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“When Do Creepy Facebook Messages Cross a Constitutional Line? The Supreme Court will hear arguments in April on a question it once ducked: whether intent counts in criminal cases based on online threats.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.