“Fallout from Stanford clash over conservative judge: Diversity dean on leave, students face training.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times reports that “Judge Duncan to speak at Notre Dame after being shouted down at Stanford.”

And Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain this letter to the editor from law professor (and former Tenth Circuit Judge) Michael W. McConnell.

“Wisconsin Court Candidates Clash Over Abortion and Democracy; In their lone debate, Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal, and Daniel Kelly, a conservative, unleashed searing attacks on each other; At stake is a crucial seat on the battleground state’s Supreme Court”: Reid J. Epstein has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Eric Bradner and Jeff Zeleny of CNN report that “Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates clash over 1849 abortion ban in lone debate.”

And Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin Public Radio reports that “Dan Kelly, Janet Protasiewicz get personal in debate for Wisconsin’s hotly-contested Supreme Court seat; Kelly repeatedly accused Protasiewicz of lying while Protasiewicz called Kelly an enemy of democracy.”

“J&J to seek U.S. Supreme Court review on unit’s bankruptcy”: Dietrich Knauth of Reuters has this report.

“A Chew Toy for Dogs Provokes a Spirited Supreme Court Argument; The justices differed about whether the toy, shaped like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s, violated the distiller’s trademark rights or was protected by the First Amendment”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “In case involving whiskey and a dog toy, Supreme Court misses the joke; Company that recast Jack Daniel’s famous square bottle as a rubbery chew toy said the item is satirical and should be protected expression.”

Michael Macagnone of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court gets a bit graphic in trademark case arguments; A dog toy that spoofs the Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle inspires references to drinking, porn and more.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Jack Daniel’s v. poop-themed dog toy in a trademark case at the Supreme Court.”

“Appeals Court Orders Trump Lawyer to Hand Over Records in Documents Inquiry; The ruling compelling the lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, to turn over documents came after a lightning round of appeals court filings overnight”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“Jack Daniel’s Tangles With Dog Toy at Supreme Court; Justices hear arguments on trademark case over ‘Bad Spaniels’ squeaky toy”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court fetches trademark battle between ‘poop-themed’ dog toy and Jack Daniel’s.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court chews on Jack Daniel’s dog toy dispute.”

John Kruzel and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court chews on Jack Daniel’s fight against parody dog toy.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Jack Daniel’s Calls Out ‘Bad Spaniels’ Dog Toy in Supreme Court Case; Justices looks to balance trademark rights, First Amendment; Kagan says she doesn’t see the humor in ‘Bad Spaniels’ takeoff.”

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “‘Poop-themed dog toys’ face Supreme Court showdown in trademark dispute; Jack Daniel’s says the novelty toys shaped like its famous whiskey bottles violate trademark protections.”

Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Supreme Court humors itself as it considers whether Jack Daniel’s can stop a dog toy company from parodying its brand.”

Kaelan Deese of Washington Examiner has an article headlined “Supreme Court toys with Jack Daniel’s trademark dispute: ‘What is the parody?’”

And at Law & Crime, Elura Nanos has a post titled “‘I’m fine with you making stuff up’: Top SCOTUS lawyer sparks fiery exchanges in Jack Daniels trademark case over bottle-shaped dog toy.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products, No. 22-148.

“Trump attorney to testify Friday in Mar-a-Lago classified documents investigation after losing appeal”: Katelyn Polantz and Kaitlan Collins of CNN have this report.

“Stanford Law official who admonished judge during speech is on leave, dean says”: Karen Sloan and Nate Raymond of Reuters have this report.

“Chief Justice Roberts to Receive ALI’s Friendly Medal”: The American Law Institute issued this news release yesterday.

“Stanford Mandates Free Speech Training After Protest of US Judge”: Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law has this report.

Today, Stanford Law School posted online this letter to the SLS Community from Dean Jenny S. Martinez.

“The Plaintiffs Trying to Ban the Abortion Pill Admitted They Have No Case”: Law professors David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouche have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Can State Sovereignty Be Bought? In West Virginia v. US Department of the Treasury, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against the American Rescue Plan Act in favor of state sovereignty.” Jack Fitzhenry has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“The Supreme Court ponders a surprisingly difficult case about poop jokes; A case about a silly, poop-themed dog toy is also a case about free speech and judicial humility”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Supreme Court rules for deaf student who says school district failed him; Ruling says young man can pursue Americans with Disabilities Act claim even as he seeks help via Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules for Deaf Student; Justices say educational accommodations don’t stop a student from suing for past damages.”

John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “Special education clash: Supreme Court sides unanimously for student with disability.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court says deaf student can sue Michigan school district that denied qualified interpreter.”

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote yesterday’s ruling in Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21-887, on behalf of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.