“DOJ and Mifepristone maker ask Supreme Court to make ultimate decision on abortion drug in 2024”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report. You can access the cert. petitions here and here.

“Southwest Seeks Fast Review, Stay of Religious Training Sanction; Says sanctions order unprecedented, violates free speech; Underlying win by Christian worker likely to be overturned”: Patrick Dorrian of Bloomberg Law has a report that begins, “Southwest Airlines Co. asked the Fifth Circuit to quickly hear its appeal of a federal judge’s order requiring three of the airline’s in-house lawyers to attend religious liberty training or to pause the training requirement until the court decides the appeal.”

“Florida Supreme Court Considers Upholding Abortion Restrictions; Several justices questioned whether Florida’s constitutional privacy rights extend to abortion, as has been longstanding legal precedent”: Patricia Mazzei of The New York Times has this report.

Caroline Kitchener, Beth Reinhard, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post report that “Fla. Supreme Court justices question long-standing abortion protections; The case centers on whether the state constitution’s privacy clause covers the right to abortion.”

John Kennedy of The Tallahassee Democrat reports that “Florida Supreme Court justices hear arguments over fate of abortion rights in Florida.”

Lawrence Mower of The Tampa Bay Times reports that “Florida Supreme Court hears oral arguments over abortion ban law; The court’s ruling could pave the way for Florida’s six-week abortion ban to take effect.”

Cindy Krischer Goodman of The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that “Challenge to 15-week abortion ban argued before Florida Supreme Court.”

Joseph Ax reports that “Abortion rights at stake as Florida court weighs DeSantis-backed ban.”

Arek Sarkissian of Politico reports that “DeSantis-packed court skeptical of Florida’s long-standing abortion protections; Florida high court justices heard arguments in a legal challenge to the state’s restrictions.”

And Tori Otten of The New Republic has a post titled “Judge Hearing Florida Abortion-Ban Case Has a Huge Conflict of Interest; Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady does not see any reason to recuse himself from the case.”

You can view the video of today’s Florida Supreme Court oral argument via this link.

“Boston Memorial Service for Judge Torruella”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has posted this video on YouTube.

“96-Year-Old Judge Releases Medical Test as Suspension Vote Looms”: Michael Shapiro of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And David Thomas of Reuters reports that “Lawyers say exam shows 96-year-old US appeals judge still fit to serve.”

Yesterday and today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is serving as counsel to Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman in this matter, issued a news release titled “Hon. Pauline Newman Passes Medical Evaluation with Flying Colors, Forensic Psychiatrist Says” and a blog post from Anita Kinney titled “I Met Judge Pauline Newman; She Proves Age Is Just a Number.”

In addition, the New Civil Liberties Alliance has posted on YouTube a video titled “Federal Judges Try Unlawful Maneuvers to Oust Iconic Judge, Hon. Pauline Newman.”

“5th Circuit finds Biden White House, CDC violated First Amendment; The Court upheld many restrictions on the White House and Surgeon General’s office’s contacts with tech companies, finding that they ‘coerced’ platforms’ content decisions”: Cat Zakrzewski of The Washington Post has this report.

And Kevin McGill of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court scales back order squelching Biden administration contact with social media platforms.”

You can access today’s 74-page unanimous per curiam ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Judge denies Meadows’ bid to move Fulton case to fed court; Ruling is a win for Fulton DA in first major test of racketeeriing prosecution”: Tamar Hallerman and David Wickert of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution have this report.

Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim of The New York Times report that “Judge Denies Meadows’s Request to Move Georgia Case to Federal Court; Moving the case to federal court would have given Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, one key advantage: a jury pool that was more favorable to Donald J. Trump.”

And Amy Gardner of The Washington Post reports that “Judge denies Mark Meadows’s effort to move Georgia case to federal court; The ruling is a blow to Meadows’s efforts in federal court to dismiss his case and could influence former president Donald Trump as he decides whether to seek removal himself.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia at this link.

“Federal appeals court lets Texas keep anti-migrant buoys in place for now; A judge in Austin had said Texas installed the floating barrier illegally, rejecting Gov. Abbott’s assertion a migrant ‘invasion’ lets the state ignore federal law and treaties”: Todd J. Gillman and Aarón Torres of The Dallas Morning News have this report.

Eduardo Medina of The New York Times reports that “Court Grants Temporary Stay on Texas’ Buoy Barrier in Rio Grande; The barrier was placed by the state to discourage illegal crossings from Mexico.”

Nick Miroff of The Washington Post reports that “Texas can keep floating barriers in Rio Grande for now, appeals court says.”

William Melhado and Uriel J. García of The Texas Tribune report that “Texas can keep buoys in the Rio Grande while legal challenge continues, federal appeals court rules.”

And David Martin Davies and Dan Katz of Texas Public Radio report that “Fifth Circuit issues temporary stay for Texas’ border buoys to remain in Rio Grande.”

You can access yesterday’s unpublished order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court expected to clarify gun rights for felons and drug users, watchers say”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And online at The New Republic, Tori Otten has an essay titled “Trump-Stacked Supreme Court May Have Already Exonerated Hunter Biden; Federal prosecutors plan to indict Hunter Biden on a gun charge; But what about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on guns?“

“Alito will not recuse in case involving lawyer who interviewed him”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Alito balks at Democratic calls to recuse in Supreme Court case involving Wall Street Journal op-ed; In an unusual four-page statement, Alito dismissed a recusal request made last month by Senate Democrats; The recusal dispute challenges a 2017 tax signed by former president Donald Trump.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justice Alito rejects Senate Democrats’ call to step aside from an upcoming Supreme Court case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “US Supreme Court’s Alito rejects recusal in tax case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court’s Alito Rejects Democratic Calls for Recusal; Interviews with lawyer were ‘nothing out of the ordinary’; Alito statement is latest sign of brewing discord over court.”

Tierney Sneed of CNN reports that “Justice Samuel Alito rejects calls from Democratic senators to recuse in case involving journalist who interviewed him.”

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “Samuel Alito says ‘no valid reason’ to step aside from Supreme Court case involving lawyer who interviewed him for WSJ; In the interviews, the conservative justice pushed back on claims of ethics violations and questioned whether Congress could legislate on the issue.”

Zach Schonfeld of The Hill reports that “Alito rejects calls to recuse from tax case after Wall Street Journal interviews.”

Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Alito rebuffs call for recusal in case with attorney who interviewed him; The conservative justice released a rare statement on an upcoming case, arguing his interview with an advocate was nothing out of the ordinary.”

And Kaelan Deese of Washington Examiner has a report headlined “Alito rejects calls from Durbin to recuse from Supreme Court tax case: ‘No valid reason.’”

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued this statement today in Moore v. United States, No. 22-800.

“How the Supreme Court’s conservatives rebuffed Alabama”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.