“Open Questions after Halkbank“: Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk has this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog,” which other than “SCOTUSblog” and this blog may be the only blog that thus far finds a certain other U.S. Supreme Court case to be of interest.

“Justice Thomas Is ‘Man of Integrity’ Says Ex-Colleague Breyer”: Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Chief U.S. appeals court judge to be questioned in harassment case”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Reuters has this report.

“Indiana music teacher forced to resign over pronoun usage asks full 7th Circuit to hear case; ADF attorneys represent John Kluge in appeal of district court’s ruling”: Alliance Defending Freedom issued this news release today. You can access the rehearing petition at this link.

“Senate Democrats Invite Chief Justice to Testify on Supreme Court Ethics; Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was asked to appear before the Judiciary Committee after reports raised new ethics questions about Justice Clarence Thomas”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.

John Wagner of The Washington Post reports that “Sen. Durbin invites Roberts to testify on Supreme Court ethics amid Thomas revelations.”

And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts Asked to Address ‘Ethical Standards’ at Supreme Court; Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin says court should adopt code of conduct.”

“Anti-domestic violence and gun groups unite to urge Supreme Court to reverse domestic violence ruling”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Judicial record undermines Clarence Thomas defence in luxury gifts scandal; Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow was linked to a conservative group that had court business while Thomas was on the bench”: Ed Pilkington of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Oregon secures three-year supply of mifepristone, pending court action; Gov. Tina Kotek announced the move Thursday, saying Oregon patients will have access to the abortion pill regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court decides”: Dirk VanderHart and Amelia Templeton of Oregon Public Broadcasting have this report.

“Democrats press Michael Chertoff for answers about Supreme Court’s investigation into leaked abortion opinion”: Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed, and Joan Biskupic of CNN have this report. You can access the letter at this link.

“Justice Clarence Thomas and the Plague of Bad Reporting: The Washington Post and ProPublica commit comically incompetent journalism; But by stirring up animus, they increase the risk of a tragic ending.” Columnist James Taranto will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The Feinstein absence is not the Democrats’ biggest judges problem”: Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of the Brookings Institution.

“The ABA needs ideological diversity to ensure its future”: Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at ABA Journal.

“How Rich Is the US Supreme Court? Justices listed between $24 million and $68 million in assets; Ethics scandals reinvigorated scrutiny of Supreme Court wealth.” Emily Birnbaum and Bill Allison of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Court rejects AG’s request to overturn Glossip’s murder conviction; execution date set”: Nolan Clay of The Oklahoman has this report.

And Carmen Forman of The Tulsa World reports that “Oklahoma court won’t overturn Richard Glossip’s conviction; execution date set.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals — that state’s highest court in criminal cases — at this link.

“After Fox Settlement, Assault on Media Protections Is Likely to Continue; Those who argue that the news media should pay a steeper price for publishing false information are pushing to have a landmark Supreme Court ruling overturned”: David Enrich has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“This Could Be One of the Most Brazen Attacks on Americans’ Health Yet”: Online at The New York Times, Jack Resneck Jr., MD, president of the American Medical Association, has a guest essay that begins, “In their zeal to continue upending abortion access after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, legislators, activists and litigants have pushed increasingly extreme measures that disregard medical science, insert government into the exam room and increase the odds of maternal deaths.”

“Abortion divides 2024 candidates and confounds many within the GOP; Presidential hopefuls have struggled to settle on a position amid warning signs that the party is on the wrong side of public opinion on the issue”: Josh Dawsey, Colby Itkowitz, Caroline Kitchener, and Maeve Reston of The Washington Post have this report.

“Why are we stuck with a Supreme Court justice who doesn’t follow the law?” Columnist Jackie Calmes has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Is Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump Constitutional? Biden — and all future presidents — should hope that it is judged to violate the Supremacy Clause.” David B. Rivkin Jr. and Kristin A. Shapiro had this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“A federal judge was refused a Lyft ride with his guide dog. He’s not alone. U.S. Judge David Tatel had hailed a ride to court, but before he could get into a Lyft, the driver got out and began shouting that he would not take Tatel’s guide dog.” Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post has this report.

“Feinstein’s continued absence from the Senate jeopardizes progress on her life’s work”: The Los Angeles Times has published this editorial.

“Would a nationwide abortion ban be constitutional?” Law professor Aaron Tang has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Our Victorian Supreme Court: What it really means for the court to look to Comstock, instead of the people, to legislate abortion.” Law professors Reva Siegel and Mary Ziegler have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court debates when unwanted messages become a stalker’s threats”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court weighs ‘true threats’ in online stalking case; Defendant Billy Counterman, of Colorado, says the jury never considered whether he intended to threaten a musician in multiple Facebook messages he sent her.”

Earlier, Allison Sherry of Colorado Public Radio reported that “One Colorado stalking victim never wanted to become the center of a First Amendment case at the US Supreme Court.”

And in commentary, at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Paul Cassell has a post titled “Intervening to Stop ‘True Threats’ from Delusional Stalkers and Devious Stalkers; Today’s oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado — the ‘true threats’ case — highlights the importance of protecting stalking victims from objectively threatening communications.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and the audio of today’s oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138.

“Republicans Can Reset the Abortion Debate; Don’t be afraid to defend the unborn, but be prepared to accept incremental progress”: Ryan T. Anderson has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Progressives Organize Fresh Nationwide Push for Changes at the Supreme Court; The drive by more than 30 organizations, some new to the effort, comes as ethics questions have engulfed Justice Clarence Thomas”: Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Complaints about Justice Thomas’s disclosures sent to judicial committee.”

Sahil Kapur and Liz Brown-Kaiser of NBC News report that “Senate Democrats eye a hearing on Clarence Thomas as Republicans shrug off gift revelations; Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, a Democrat, called Thomas’ conduct ‘outrageous’; But most Republicans say they’re not troubled by the conservative justice’s ethics controversy.”

In commentary, online at The Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson has an essay titled “Clarence Thomas’s explanations fail the laugh test.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, columnist Robin Abcarian has an essay titled “What Clarence Thomas calls hospitality looks a lot more like corruption.”

Online at Slate, Virginia Canter, Norman L. Eisen, and law professor Richard W. Painter have a jurisprudence essay titled “So, Is Clarence Thomas at Real Risk Here? Absolutely. This scandal is just getting started.”

And at Balls and Strikes, Steve Kennedy has a post titled “The Supreme Court’s Power Made Clarence Thomas’s Corruption Inevitable; The justices understand how unaccountable they are; So do wealthy people who can afford to befriend them.”

“The Cost of Merrick Garland’s Silence Around the Trump Investigation”: Jeffrey Toobin has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court Delays Decision on Abortion Pill, Preserving Access for Now; The drug will remain widely available as the justices extended their deadline to Friday on whether to uphold the F.D.A.’s approval of the pill”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report on two orders (here and here) that the U.S. Supreme Court issued today.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its ruling today in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Andersson, No. 21-1648: In its unanimous decision issued today, a three-judge First Circuit panel rejected the enforcement of the exact same choice-of-law provision as is involved in my client’s case now pending on the merits before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Rowan Wilson Is Confirmed as New York’s Chief Judge; Judge Wilson, a prominent liberal jurist, will be the first Black judge to lead the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court”: Luis Ferré-Sadurní of The New York Times has this report.

And Joshua Solomon of The Times Union of Albany, New York reports that “Court of Appeals has new chief judge while lawsuit looms; Rowan D. Wilson becomes first Black chief judge in state history.”

“The Constitutional Political Economy of Carcass Disposal; The Slaughter-House Cases reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons”: Evan Bernick has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Federal Circuit Probe of Judge’s Fitness Risks Protracted Battle”: Michael Shapiro and Riddhi Setty of Bloomberg Law have this report.

As Dennis Crouch of the “Patently-O” blog noted on Twitter, Judge Newman was a panelist on the closing panel of last week’s Fordham IP Conference, and she speaks at 4:46 mark of this video of that panel.

“Republicans block Senate Democrats’ push to replace Feinstein on Judiciary panel; There’s no timeline for Sen. Dianne Feinstein to return after a lengthy medical absence”: Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.

And Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost reports that “Dick Durbin Still Hoping For ‘Common Ground’ With GOP For Moving Biden’s Judges; ‘We’re not at that point yet,’ the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said of being willing to ditch blue slips in response to Republican obstruction.”

“Democrats bash Justice Clarence Thomas but their plan to investigate ethics allegations is unclear”: Tierney Sneed of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court to Decide Availability of Abortion Pill as Appeal Moves Forward; Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. had issued a stay that was set to expire at midnight, meaning the justices are likely to act before then, although they could extend the deadline or fail to act”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court poised to rule on abortion pill restrictions.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “US Supreme Court faces self-imposed deadline to act on abortion pill curbs.”

Tierney Sneed of CNN has a report headlined “What to watch for with the Supreme Court and medication abortion on Wednesday.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico has a report headlined “‘The justices were kidding themselves’: Supreme Court takes up abortion after saying lawmakers should decide; The court is expected to rule by Wednesday on whether to allow an earlier decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to take effect, sharply limiting access to a commonly used abortion pill nationwide.”

And at his “Law Dork” Substack site, Chris Geidner has a post titled “DOJ urges SCOTUS to keep mifepristone ruling on hold during appeal to prevent ‘scramble’; Of the ‘significant chaos’ patients and providers would face if lower court rulings go into effect, DOJ argues the anti-abortion challengers ‘do not even acknowledge that reality.’“