“‘He’s known as a lawyer’s lawyer’: Daniel Kelly pins Supreme Court run on conservative credentials.” Molly Beck and Corrinne Hess of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have this report.

Anya van Wagtendonk of Wisconsin Public Radio has reports headlined “The issue of abortion transformed the Wisconsin Supreme Court race; With a challenge to Wisconsin’s abortion ban likely headed to the court, the winner of this race could decide whether abortion is legal in the state” and “Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates dispute one another’s impartiality; In back-to-back appearances on WPR, Janet Protasiewicz and Dan Kelly each accused the other of representing partisan interests.”

And in commentary, online at The Washington Post, columnist Jennifer Rubin has an essay titled “Wisconsin Supreme Court race previews 2024 abortion fight.”

“A threat to democracy or much-needed reform? Israel’s judicial overhaul explained.” Hadas Gold of CNN has this report.

“Ethical no man’s land: can the US supreme court be trusted to police itself? The nation’s highest court relies on justices to judge for themselves if they have a conflict of interest. Often members of the hard-right majority decide they don’t.” Ed Pilkington of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Ketanji Brown Jackson has battled, compromised in her first nine months on the Supreme Court; Justice Kavanaugh says Brown is ‘off to a great start'”: Brianna Herlihy of Fox News has this report.

“Supreme Court Should Take and Reverse Fifth Circuit Decision that Creates a Catch-22 for Takings Claims Against State Government; The badly flawed ruling defies the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 decision forbidding such Catch-22 traps”: Ilya Somin has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Three lawyers and a robot walk into a bar . . . and debate motions practice.” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”