“Law firms take a pass on paying for Twitter checks, but some star attorneys shell out”: Jenna Greene of Reuters has this report.

“The Democrats’ Appalling Failure to Confront the Rogue, Right-Wing Supreme Court; The party needs to take its cue from America’s most celebrated leaders, who had no fear of talking directly to the public about the Constitution”: Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Chief Justice John Roberts punts on request to investigate Clarence Thomas”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“The Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade now takes it slow on abortion”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“With Supreme Court poised to eliminate use of race in college admissions, states with existing bans offer a sobering view”: Hilary Burns of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Chief Justice John Roberts’ Mockery of Stalking Victims Points to a Deeper Problem; The justices take their own safety very, very seriously. Everybody else’s? Not so much.” Law professor Mary Anne Franks has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And today’s episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast, on which Franks is Dahlia Lithwick’s guest, is titled “John Roberts’ Unfunny Stalking Jokes at SCOTUS; A cyber-stalking case highlights whose safety matters to SCOTUS when it comes to free speech.”

“The Stealth Impeachment of Judge Newman in the Federal Circuit: Chief Judge Kimberly Moore cannot be the judge, jury, and executioner of her colleague.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Details about multimillion-dollar stock holding concealed in abortion pill judge’s financial disclosures”: Casey Tolan and Isabelle Chapman of CNN have this report.

“Religion Has Friends Among Judges in High Places”: Linda Greenhouse has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“In Abortion Pill Ruling, the Supreme Court Trades Ambition for Prudence; The court’s order seemed to vindicate a commitment in last year’s decision in Dobbs: to leave further questions about abortion to the political process.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

And Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law report that “Supreme Court’s Handling of Abortion Case Embraces Past Practice.”

“ShotSpotter reports gunshots in Pittsburgh 3,000 times a year. One case could deflect its use in court. The alert system is increasingly important in police efforts to understand and address gun crime, but the state Supreme Court may soon address whether it tilts the scales of justice.” Charlie Wolfson, Amelia Winger, and Rich Lord of PublicSource had this report back in August 2022.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heard what turned out to be a very interesting oral argument in this appeal earlier this week, and you can access the oral argument audio via this link.

The issue Pennsylvania’s highest court granted review to decide is “[w]hether a ‘Shotspotter Investigative Lead Summary’ written report, which purports to show the time and location of a shooting incident and was offered as substantive evidence to the jury at trial, is testimonial in nature and subject to the protections afforded under the Confrontation Clause enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”