“Anti-abortion coalition asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on abortion pill; Groups challenging FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone say justices should preserve a lower court ruling that would bar people from obtaining it by mail”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report. You can access the filing at this link.

“Supreme Court Justice Bernstein to temporarily step away for mental health treatment”: Arpan Lobo of The Detroit Free Press has a report that begins, “Michigan Supreme Court Justice Richard Bernstein will temporarily step away from some court duties while seeking mental health care out of state, the court announced Tuesday.”

“On All The Recent Federal Judicial Scandals: Justice Thomas, Judge Kacsmaryk, and Judge Newman, oh my!” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“The Clarence Thomas Scandal Is About More Than Corruption; It’s about his jurisprudence”: Professor Corey Robin has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Ginni the Moocher: Hi-de-hi-de-hi-de-hide the gifts from the billionaire on the financial disclosure statements.” Greg Olear has this post at his “PREVAIL” Substack site.

“Judge James C. Ho’s Remarks on Justice Thomas and Judge Kacsmaryk”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“True Threats, Free Speech, and Federalism”: Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“The Ultimate in Anti-Abortion Exceptionalism”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Anti-Abortion Lawyers Love this Zombie Law; The Comstock Act is a 19th century vice law they hope could criminalize abortion nationwide”: You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“23. The Resignation of Justice Fortas: The only scandal-impelled resignation of a Supreme Court Justice in the Court’s history provides a revealing yardstick against which to measure current events.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Republicans Say They Won’t Help Democrats Replace Feinstein; Schumer wants to swap in another Democrat on key committee; Ailing Feinstein, 89, has been absent for nearly two months”: Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Top Senate Republicans said they won’t vote in favor of replacing absent Senator Dianne Feinstein with another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, signaling a continued halt on most of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees.”

“Senate Dems weighing a Clarence Thomas invite to future Supreme Court ethics hearing; If he’s asked to appear, the justice is likely to face questions about reports on his relationship with a billionaire GOP donor”: Katherine Tully-McManus and Burgess Everett of Politico have this report.

“FDA case may reveal if Supreme Court conservative justices are abortion foes above all else”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news analysis.

“Fifth Circuit Judges Offer Tips for Litigating in Their Court”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Trolling TROLP”: At “Dorf on Law,” Diane Kemker has a post that begins, “On April 15, 2023, the Washington Post published a shocking piece under the title, ‘The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate.'”

“Clarence Thomas to amend financial disclosure forms to reflect sale to GOP megadonor”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Harlan Crow: There’s nothing wrong with my friendship with Clarence Thomas; The billionaire, in an exclusive interview, explains his relationship with Thomas, his love of American history and wanting to stay out of the limelight.” Cheryl Hall has this front page article in today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case.

“Clarence Thomas’s problems are also a John Roberts problem; The Chief Justice wrote in 2011 that the justices didn’t need a Code of Conduct; Roberts needs to address whether he still thinks that; Also: A busy week ahead at SCOTUS.” Chris Geidner has this post at his “Law Dork” Substack site.

“Federal Courts Battle Over the Abortion Pill; Millions of women find that their access to health care hinges on two conflicting rulings, and is seemingly headed, once more, to the Supreme Court”: Sue Halpern will have this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the April 24, 2023 issue of The New Yorker.

“Colleges scramble to prepare for possible end of affirmative action”: Hilary Burns of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Supreme Court Weighs Clash of Postal Worker’s Sabbath and Sunday Deliveries; The justices have been receptive to claims of religious freedom and may take a broad view of a federal law that requires employers to ‘reasonably accommodate’ workers’ religious practices”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has an article headlined “He quit his job over Sunday work. Should his boss have been more flexible? Supreme Court hears case to decide how much employers must accommodate individual religious practice.”

John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “‘Wolf in sheep’s clothing’? How a USPS worker’s fight over Sunday shifts could change your workplace; The justices will hear arguments Tuesday in what one observer described as the ‘most wide-reaching religious liberty case in roughly half a century.’”

And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court takes up a messy, chaotic case about religion in the workplace; Groff v. DeJoy could give religious conservatives unprecedented power to make demands from their employers.”

“Judicial Notice (04.15.23): Biglaw Bad News; Deferred start dates and staff layoffs, another Cravath partner departure, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“The controversial article Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose to the Senate; The judge who delivered a high-stakes abortion pills ruling last week removed his name from a law review article during his judicial nomination process, emails show”: Caroline Kitchener, Robert Barnes, and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

“Mifepristone and the rule of law, part IV; The Fifth Circuit’s merits analysis was as wrong as its standing analysis”: Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate firm; The misstatements, which began when a family business transferred its holdings to another company, are part of a pattern that has raised questions about how the Supreme Court justice views his obligation to accurately report details about his finances to the public”: Shawn Boburg and Emma Brown of The Washington Post have this report.

“Amy Wax and the Limits of Academic Freedom”: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has posted this video on YouTube.

And in news coverage, Ximena Conde of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Penn Law’s Amy Wax makes her case to college professors, hoping to gain their support; Facing a disciplinary hearing at Penn Law over controversial remarks made over the years, Amy Wax tried to win over faculty across the country in attempt to pressure her school to drop hearing plans.”

“U.S. appeals court weighs free speech challenge to attorney conduct rule”: David Thomas of Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court in Philadelphia on Thursday questioned whether a free-speech advocate and Pennsylvania attorney can pursue his First Amendment challenge against the state’s adoption of an anti-harassment and discrimination professional rule for lawyers.”

You can access via this link the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

“Texas Bar Application Adds Questions About ‘Incivility’ and Free Speech in Wake of Stanford Law School Fracas”: Aaron Sibarium of The Washington Free Beacon has this report.

“What Law Students Should Take Away from the Stanford Law School Controversy Involving Disruption of a Federal Judge’s Speech: Part One in a Series.” Law professors Vikram David Amar and Jason Mazzone have this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

Also online at Justia’s Verdict, law professor Neil H. Buchanan has an essay titled “A Public Statement About Law Students (and Others) Acting Like Children, from a Fictional University President — Or, the Stanford Incident is Not What You Think.” At “Dorf on Law,” Buchanan has a related blog post titled “Fabricated Outrage and the Right’s Attack on Higher Education.”

And online at The Los Angeles Times, Nico Perrino has an essay titled “College campus hecklers, your disruptions don’t count as free speech.”

“Clarence Thomas enters the danger zone”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“U.S. appeals court judge faces rare probe into competency, misconduct”: Blake Brittain and Andrew Goudsward of Reuters have this report.

And at the “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Federal Circuit Confirms its Scrutiny of Judge Newman.”

“Justice Samuel Alito temporarily extends access to abortion drug while Supreme Court considers case”: Ariane de Vogue, Tierney Sneed, and Devan Cole of CNN have this report.

You can view today’s orders here and here.

“Quid Pro Crow: Clarence Thomas’ position toward disclosure is actually clarified by his jurisprudence.” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Appeals court will decide if lawyers can evade common fund fees in consolidated cases”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about the appeal I will be arguing next Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sitting in Phoenix, Arizona.

The post’s headline may be a bit misleading, however, since the issue is whether MDL common fund fees can be assessed against cases that were never a part of the MDL proceeding because they were never filed in any court, were filed in state court, or were filed in federal court after the MDL closed, simply because the lawyer for the plaintiffs in these cases also represented clients in the MDL proceeding.