“Supreme Court Turns Down Facebook Police Parody Case Backed by the Onion; The Facebook page’s creator, Anthony Novak, had sued Ohio city for violating his civil rights”: Joseph Pisani of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court won’t hear man’s free speech case after he was jailed for making fun of police online.”

“Supreme Court Frustrated and Wary Over Legal Shield for Tech Companies; The case, concerning a law that gives websites immunity for suits based on their users’ posts, has the potential to alter the very structure of the internet”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes, Cristiano Lima, and Will Oremus of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court seems cautious on Google case that could reshape internet; Justices across the ideological spectrum said they were confused by the plaintiff’s case and concerned about undermining Congress’s intent.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sounds wary of weakening Section 230 to allow lawsuits against internet giants.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Justices Express Skepticism at Holding Google Liable for Content; Islamic State victim’s family argues that Section 230 shouldn’t shield internet company.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court eager to steer clear of sweeping changes to internet in Section 230 dispute.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court skeptical of upending Big Tech legal protection for hosting controversial content.”

“In Vermont, a School and Artist Fight Over Murals of Slavery. Created to depict the brutality of enslavement, the works are seen by some as offensive. The school wants them permanently covered. The artist says they are historically important.” Jenna Russell of The New York Times has this report.

“Liberal Judge Is First to Advance in Major Wisconsin Supreme Court Election; Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal judge from Milwaukee County, will face one of two conservatives in a race that could tilt the balance of the court, with abortion rights, gerrymandered maps and more in the balance”: Reid J. Epstein of The New York Times has this report.

“Default on U.S. Debt Is Impossible; The Constitution makes clear that bondholders have to be paid, and other obligations aren’t ‘debt'”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Another D.C. Circuit Chevron Special: A case study in how judges rubber stamp executive law-writing.” This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Access online the live audio of this morning’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, No. 21-1333: The Court will be streaming the oral argument via this link beginning shortly after 10 a.m. eastern time.

And C-SPAN will be live-streaming the oral argument via this link.

“Legal Progressives Have Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’; Liberal law professors used to love the Court’s Justices unconditionally. Now they’re starting to criticize little things they do”: At the “Law & Liberty” blog, Mark Pulliam has this post reviewing law professor Stephen Vladeck‘s forthcoming book, “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.”

“Congress Couldn’t Rein In Big Tech. Now the Supreme Court Is Stepping In. Gonzalez v. Google could pierce the internet’s legal shield. Lawmakers pushed legislation to reform Section 230 for years.” Emily Birnbaum of Bloomberg News has this report.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court showdown for Google, Twitter and the social media world.”

And online at Balls and Strikes, G.S. Hans has a post titled “How the Supreme Court’s Big Tech Cases Could (Somehow) Make the Internet Even Worse; Gonzalez v. Google and Taamneh v. Twitter give an ultraconservative Supreme Court that loves to clumsily legislate the chance to do exactly that.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

And in Davis v. United States, No. 22–5364, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined, from the denial of certiorari.