“Senate Democrats Plan to Subpoena Wealthy Figures Who Paid for Thomas’s and Alito’s Luxury Trips; Justices’ travel sponsors argue Congress has no power to require cooperation with Supreme Court ethics probe”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court Weighs When Officials May Block Citizens on Social Media; The justices struggled to distinguish private conduct, which is not subject to the First Amendment, from state action, which is”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “High court struggles on whether officials may block social media critics; The Supreme Court will decide several cases this term that impact the future of free speech on social media platforms.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court asked to protect California school officials from critics on Facebook.”

Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press reports that “US Supreme Court hears arguments over Port Huron city manager’s Facebook page.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico has a report headlined “Can politicians block their critics on Twitter? Not always, Supreme Court suggests. The justices heard arguments on when a public official’s social media account becomes ‘state action’ under the First Amendment.”

And Mark Walsh of Education Week has a report headlined “What the Supreme Court Had to Say About School Board Members Blocking Constituents.”

“The Supreme Court seems stumped by two cases about free speech online; The justices appear to have no idea when they should get involved with online disputes between government officials and their constituents”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“$23,500 in Coins to Pay a Settlement? Judge Says Keep the Change and Try Again. A Colorado judge ordered a welding company to use a check or other conventional method to pay a settlement after it tried to deliver 6,500 pounds in coins.” Amanda Holpuch of The New York Times has this report.

“Too conservative for the Supreme Court? The nation’s most right-leaning appeals court draws scrutiny. Is a federal appeals court in Louisiana ‘testing the boundary’ of the conservative legal movement or just reflecting where the Supreme Court is moving the law?” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“A Small Fish and an Uncollected Fee Add Up to Big-Government Challenge at the Supreme Court; Herring fishermen and anti-regulation groups seek to overturn the ‘Chevron’ precedent that lets federal agencies interpret unclear statutes”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Trump fights loom large for a Supreme Court that has tried to ignore him; A tiff over a Trump-related T-shirt is just the beginning; The justices, despite their reluctance, may soon have to take up a flurry of major Trump legal disputes”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“Enter the FBI: Surveillance, wiretaps and phone records dominate Day 4 of Adelson trial.” Jeff Burlew and Elena Barrera of The Tallahassee Democrat have this report.

And Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics has a post titled “Charlie Adelson trial Day 4 Part 1: Exactly 10 years ago, Adelson first solicited Magbanua to kill Dan Markel.”

“What Matters Most in the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Social Media Cases”: Jameel Jaffer has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Justices Will Probe Trademarks’ Nature in ‘Trump Too Small’ Case; Trademark office blocked ‘Trump Too Small’ in 2019; Appeals court overruled ban in 2022”: Kyle Jahner of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“The 2023 Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture”: The Heritage Foundation has posted this video on YouTube. Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho delivered the lecture.

Programming note: On Tuesday morning, I will be arguing this appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sitting in Wilmington, Delaware.

Tomorrow’s oral argument session is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. eastern time. The court live-streams its oral arguments on YouTube.

“US Supreme Court signals it will side with Alabama after police seized women’s cars”: Howard Koplowitz of Alabama Media Group has this report.

And in commentary, online at Slate, Jay Willis has a Jurisprudence essay titled “SCOTUS Considers How Easy It Should Be for Police to Steal People’s Property; This case could have life-changing consequences for people caught up in the legal system who haven’t actually been convicted, or even accused, of a crime.”

“Springfield judge appointed to fill Missouri Supreme Court vacancy”: Kelly Dereuck of The Springfield News-Leader has this report.

And Kelton Turner of The Missouri Times reports that “Governor Parson appoints Ginger Gooch to Missouri Supreme Court.”

Today, the Office of Missouri Governor Michael L. Parson issued a news release titled “Governor Parson Appoints The Honorable Ginger Gooch as Missouri Supreme Court Judge.”

“Kansas judge blocks new abortion pill reversal law and old clinic regulations statutes”: Jason Alatidd of The Topeka Capital-Journal has this report.

And Rachel Mipro of Kansas Reflector has a report headlined “‘Disproven and unsupportable’: Kansas judge blocks junk science abortion restrictions; The ruling called the long-standing ‘Women’s Right to Know Act’ an attempt to discourage abortion seekers.”

You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Providers can sue over Arizona ban on abortion for genetic anomalies — court”: Brendan Pierson of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Pa. Jury Awards Nearly $1B in Defective Seatbelt Case; ‘This will continue and you have the power to make it stop,’ Wesley Ball, of Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball, told the jury”: Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.

“Pa. Supreme Court race between Carolyn Carluccio and Dan McCaffery has turned into a multi-million dollar showdown; Campaign finance reports released last week show Republican Carolyn Carluccio and Democrat Dan McCaffery have spent millions on ad buys to fill Pennsylvanians’ mailboxes and airwaves”: Gillian McGoldrick of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Democrats plan to subpoena wealthy benefactors of Supreme Court justices”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Senate Democrats vow to subpoena key Thomas and Alito allies over Supreme Court ethics lapses.”

And Steven T. Dennis of Bloomberg News reports that “Senate Democrats Move to Subpoena Harlan Crow in Supreme Court Probe; Billionaire’s gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas ignited outcry; Senators also seek a subpoena for conservative activist Leo.”

“Magbanua flips: Web of lies and phone records dominate Day 3 of Charlie Adelson trial.” Jeff Burlew and Elena Barrera of The Tallahassee Democrat have this report.

And at Florida Politics, Peter Schorsch has a post titled “Charlie Adelson trial Day 3 Part 1: Accomplices tell the truth.”

“Cars Seized by Police Get Supreme Court Scrutiny in Civil Forfeiture Case; Several justices seemed wary of allowing law enforcement officials to take vehicles used to commit crimes when their owners were not at fault”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“CT Supreme Court could decide if blogger can hide IDs of commenters who allegedly defamed cop”: Jordan Nathaniel Fenster of CT Insider has this report.

“Colorado case seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from ballot goes to trial, putting insurrection arguments to test; Denver court on Monday will begin hearing major challenge based on Trump’s role on Jan. 6, 2021”: Nick Coltrain of The Denver Post has this report.

“The Dubious Conversion Therapy Case Being Pushed on the Supreme Court; The anti-LGBTQ movement hopes the high court might agree to overturn bans on the discredited practice on First Amendment grounds”: Catherine Caruso has this post online at The New Republic.

“Trump’s Old Legal Arguments Are Coming Back to Haunt Him”: Law professor Aaron Tang has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Can a city official ‘cancel’ a constituent? How a fight over an emoji wound up at the Supreme Court. Former President Donald Trump raised a similar question for the high court three years ago after he blocked followers who criticized him on the platform then known as Twitter.” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Justice Department asks Supreme Court to block trademark ‘Trump too small’”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

And in King v. Brownback, No. 22–912, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.

“Federal Judge Reinstates Gag Order on Trump in Election Case; Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that her order should stay in effect while the former president’s lawyers pursue an appeal”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

And Rachel Weiner and Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post report that “Judge reimposes restrictions on Trump’s speech in Jan. 6 case.”

“Can Police Simply Take Your Car? Due-process principles require the Supreme Court to impose limits on the practice of civil forfeiture.” Rob Johnson and Wesley Hottot will have this op-ed in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“How the US supreme court and an Idaho couple upended wetlands protection; Experts fear half of the 290m wetland acres have lost federal protection and could be at risk from developers”: Oliver Milman of The Guardian has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court might consider Grants Pass homelessness case; The case stems from a ruling in 2020 from a court in Medford”: Jane Vaughan of Jefferson Public Radio has this report.

And in related commentary, in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, columnist Andy Kessler will have an op-ed titled “Three Ideas to End Tent Cities; Changing a few laws and tightening border security could reduce urban homelessness.”

“Judge James Ho warns college campuses have become a danger to American ideals”: Breccan F. Thies of Washington Examiner has this report.

“Supreme Court wades into social media wars over free speech; Three major issues on the role of social media in society are before the justices, with oral arguments in the first two cases taking place this week”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

And in commentary, Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Supreme Court Gets a Social-Media Test; The Justices will consider whether public officials can block citizens from their personal accounts.”

“Louisiana Mother of Autistic Child Hit by Teacher Files Supreme Court Petition; School officials in three states are effectively immune from lawsuits over excessive corporal punishment; A Louisiana mother is asking the Supreme Court to step in”: C.J. Ciaramella has this post online at Reason.

You can view the cert. petition at this link.