“Supreme Court asked to rule on state law that prohibits therapists from counseling against gender transition; The 9th Circuit upheld the law, which is aimed at banning ‘conversion therapy'”: Brianna Herlihy of Fox News has this report.

You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“Michigan Supreme Court Proposal Would Impose ‘Preferred Pronouns’ in System of Justice”: Andrea M. Picciotti-Bayer has this essay online at National Catholic Register about a proposed rule change that Michigan’s highest court has under consideration.

As you might imagine, the rule change proposal has already received numerous public comments, which can be accessed via this link (scroll down) — including a comment from 12 Michigan Court of Appeals Judges.

“Iowa Poll: Over 60% support legal abortion as state Supreme Court considers restrictions.” Katie Akin of The Des Moines Register has this report.

“Kansas Supreme Court skeptical of state bids to restrict abortion; Kansas lawmakers passed a law prohibiting dilation and extraction abortions, and another that slammed abortion clinics with more regulations than other health care providers”: Andrew J. Nelson of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Abortion Wins Elections: The fight to make reproductive rights the centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s 2024 agenda.” Rebecca Traister has this cover story in the March 27, 2023 issue of New York magazine.

“‘Racist taint.’ Will the Supreme Court review a Jim Crow-era voting ban targeted at Black Mississippians?” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Even Best Friends Sometimes Disagree”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Will Havens Realty Be ‘Abandoned’ Like The Lemon Test? Another Burger Court precedent is on the chopping block.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Judge delivers lecture on free speech at Notre Dame after Stanford shutdown”: Valerie Richardson has this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Times.

“How State Supreme Courts Can Make Up For the Federal Judiciary’s Failures; State supreme courts have a long history of protecting civil rights that reactionary federal judges are happy to ignore”: Kent Hull has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“The Difference Between a Bad Joke and Not a Joke”: At his “Dorf on Law” blog, Michael C. Dorf has a post that begins, “Last week’s oral argument in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Prods., LLC was difficult to handicap.”

“Disability rights activist faces Supreme Court showdown over hotel accessibility lawsuits; The justices will decide whether accessibility ‘testers’ can sue over a lack of information on hotel websites when they have no intention of staying at the hotels in question”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Is It Infringement If It’s Funny?” You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, recorded in Hawaii (we’re not envious of that, are we?), via this link.

“20. ‘Munsingwear Vacaturs’: A dissent from Justice Jackson criticized the Court’s growing use of summary orders to wipe away lower-court rulings after appeals become moot; If anything, she understated the problems.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one case and called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

And in Donziger v. United States, No. 22–274, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissent, in which Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined, from the denial of certiorari.

In Bashman (and Bashwoman) news from South London: Ertan Karpazli and Joe Smith of The Mirror (UK) report that “Four teenage girls ‘bash man and woman in head using bottle and crutch’ on London bus; The four female suspects, described as aged in their mid to late teens, allegedly caused chaos on the top deck of the bus as it passed through Croydon in South London late at night.”

“A case on free speech and immigration at the Supreme Court”: This audio segment appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Supreme Court affirmative action case adds urgency to push to end legacy admissions at colleges”: Hilary Burns of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Higher education faces an inflection point with DEI; Stanford Law School was just the cardinal in the coal mine”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Amgen Seeks to Monopolize Nature; The Supreme Court takes up an overbroad patent that seeks to pre-empt a competitor’s pharmaceutical product”: Gregory Winter has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Judicial Notice (03.25.23): Stepping In It; Much ado about doggie doo, a judicial nominee’s ‘oops’ moment, the Gwyneth Paltrow trial, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Trial date set for Charlie Adelson in Dan Markel murder case”: Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat recently had an article that begins, “Jury selection and testimony is slated to begin in October in the trial of Charlie Adelson, who is accused of orchestrating the 2014 professional hit on Florida State law professor Dan Markel.”

“‘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.”

“City of Tulsa argues it has the ability to prosecute Native people under pre-statehood law; A pre-statehood law, known as the Curtis Act, was used to force allotment; It’s now being used as the latest way to challenge the landmark McGirt v. Oklahoma decision”: Allison Herrera of KOSU Radio in Stillwater, Oklahoma has this report.

You can access the audio of yesterday’s Tenth Circuit oral argument of this appeal via this link. And the “Turtle Talk” blog provides access to the appellate briefs via this link.

“Supreme Court should protect third parties from IRS fishing expeditions”: Quin Hillyer has this essay online at Washington Examiner.

“Appealing § 1447(e) Remands, Genuine & Otherwise; The Second Circuit tackled a series of issues concerning remand appeals, including whether § 1447(d)’s bar on appeals applies to § 1447(e) remands and whether an appellate court can inquire into the true grounds for a remand”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“Court Action Underscores Peril for Trump in Documents Investigation; Federal prosecutors continue to build a case that the former president obstructed efforts by the government to reclaim classified material and that he may have misled his own lawyer”: Maggie Haberman, Alan Feuer, Ben Protess, and William K. Rashbaum have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Appeal over Trump’s Jan. 6 liability draws Supreme Court vet Verrilli”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Reuters has this report.

“D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Bahlul v. United States”: Robert Loeb has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“What Anti-Abortion Advocates Really Think of Women’s Lives: In a new case, Oklahoma’s dissenting judges made a chilling declaration of their true beliefs.” Christina Cauterucci has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.