“Why Orrin Hatch Was Eager to Help Bill Clinton; The electoral appeal of the deference model”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“Has Justice Barrett Replaced Justice Ginsburg as the Court’s Quickest Opinion Writer? Justice Barrett has produced two majority opinions before most of her colleagues have produced one.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.” Of course, the author of an opinion at the U.S. Supreme Court does not have unilateral control over when the opinion issues.

“Guido Calabresi’s Synthesis: In his life and work, Guido Calabresi has harmonized different, even opposed, qualities in himself and the world.” At the “Law & Liberty” blog, John O. McGinnis has this post reviewing law professor Norman I. Silber‘s book, “Outside In: The Oral History of Guido Calabresi.”

“Another separation-of-powers case, press access to trials, and maritime insurance”: John Elwood has this “Relist Watch” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Rules for Death Row Inmate in Arizona; By a 5-to-4 vote, the justices sided with John Montenegro Cruz, who was sentenced to death by jurors who were not told he would be ineligible for parole if they voted for a life sentence”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Reverses Death Sentence for Arizona Defendant; Justices rule inmate was illegally barred from telling jury he was ineligible for parole.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, law professor Leah Litman has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Did Something Rare: Enforced a Precedent Conservatives Hate.”

“Supreme Court Wrestles With Suit Claiming Twitter Aided Terrorists; The case, arising from an attack in Istanbul, was a companion to a case argued a day before that tested a shield for technology platforms”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Cristiano Lima of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court questions Twitter’s liability for terrorist attack; Justices spent hours this week questioning lawyers about whether tech companies should be held liable for content posted on their platforms.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sounds split on whether social media firms can be sued for aiding terrorists.”

Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Twitter Is Liable in Terror Case; Case was brought by family members of man killed in Islamic State attack.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court struggles to draw line on how Big Tech aids terrorists who use platforms.”

“Strong Democratic Showing in Wisconsin Court Race Sets Up a Frenzied Finish; Democratic turnout was high in the Tuesday primary for the State Supreme Court, ahead of a costly general election that will decide the future of abortion rights and gerrymandered maps in the state”: Reid J. Epstein of The New York Times has this report.

Patrick Marley of The Washington Post reports that “Field narrows in Wisconsin Supreme Court election that could decide abortion ban fate.”

Molly Beck, Bill Glauber, Corrinne Hess, and Mary Spicuzza of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report that “Janet Protasiewicz, Daniel Kelly advance in high stakes, high-spending Supreme Court race.”

And online at Slate, Dennis Aftergut and Kent D. Peterson have a jurisprudence essay titled “Abortion Is Turning Wisconsin Blue in a Critical Judicial Race.”

“The Supreme Court Is Making the Domestic Violence Crisis Worse; The legal system is supposed to help survivors of domestic violence; Instead, it is rendering survivors’ already-meager protections useless”: Yvette Borja has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“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.

“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.

“There is only one way to rein in Republican judges: Shaming them.” Columnist Perry Bacon Jr. has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Ron Wyden’s Nullification Doctrine: A powerful Democratic Senator calls on the FDA and Biden to ignore a possible court order on an abortion drug.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Biden and Republican senators join forces in attack on Big Tech at Supreme Court; Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley essentially agree with the Biden administration in opposing broad immunity for social media companies”: Lawrence Hurley and David Ingram of NBC News have this report.

And Matt Shuham of HuffPost reports that “The Supreme Court’s Big Internet Cases Are Scrambling The Partisan Divide; The fight for the future of the web could depend on this week’s arguments over content moderation and a law known as Section 230.”

“Her baby has a deadly diagnosis. Her Florida doctors refused an abortion. Florida abortion ban includes exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. But her doctors told her they could not act.” Frances Stead Sellers of The Washington Post has this report.

“A Wisconsin Supreme Court race holds high stakes for abortion rights and the 2024 election”: Tierney Sneed and Fredreka Schouten of CNN have this report.

Adam Edelman of NBC News reports that “Democrats see a prime chance to take control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court; Democrats haven’t had a majority on it in 15 years, but they see concerns over abortion access and voting rights as key opportunities to take back control.”

Scott Bauer of The Associated Press reports that “Abortion among major issues at stake in Wisconsin court race.”

Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post has a news analysis headlined “How a Wisconsin Supreme Court race could influence abortion laws.”

Corrinne Hess of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article headlined “From gay rights to abortion access and property rights. Where 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates stand on big rulings.” According to the article, “Jennifer Dorow cited Lawrence v. Texas that legalized same-sex sexual activity as Supreme Court’s worst ruling.”

In commentary, online at The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin has an essay titled “The political world focuses on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race.”

And online at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, columnist Daniel Bice has an essay titled “Supreme Court candidate Daniel Kelly was paid $120,000 by Republicans to work on ‘election integrity,’ advise on fake electors.”

“Terrorists killed their daughter; Now they’re fighting Google in the Supreme Court; Are tech companies liable when their algorithms recommend terrorist content? The Court’s answer could upend the way the internet works.” Gerrit De Vynck of The Washington Post has this report.

And Hailey Fuchs and Brendan Bordelon of Politico report that “Google tries to ‘astroturf’ the Supreme Court; An amicus brief calling to preserve Section 230 was paid for by a group with ties to Google.”