“Supreme Court Urged to Rule Against Mandatory Repatriation Tax; Couple says upholding tax would broaden Congress’s tax powers; US says law is indistinguishable from other income taxes”: John Woolley of Bloomberg Tax has this report.

You can access petitioners’ Reply Brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“The US supreme court’s new ‘ethics code’ is an embarrassment”: Columnist Moira Donegan has this essay online at The Guardian.

“The Supreme Court’s new ethics rules, decoded”: Columnist Alexandra Petri has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Grand jury indicts Donna Adelson in Dan Markel murder two days after Miami airport arrest”: Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“Spending on Pa. Supreme Court race broke records, set precedent for outside influence”: Stephen Caruso and Kate Huangpu of Spotlight PA have this report.

“Biden nominates union lawyer, Muslim American to U.S. appeals courts”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

Will Weissert of The Associated Press reports that “Biden announces 5 federal judicial nominees and stresses their varied professional backgrounds.”

Azi Paybarah of The Washington Post reports that “Biden nominee would be first Muslim on federal appellate court in U.S. history.”

Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Biden judicial pick would be the first Muslim American to serve on any federal appellate court.”

Zoë Richards of NBC News reports that “Biden to nominate attorney who would be first Muslim American judge on a federal appeals court; Adeel A. Mangi would serve on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals if confirmed by the Senate.”

Seth Stern of Bloomberg Law reports that “President Biden to Nominate First Muslim to a Circuit Court Seat.”

And David Wildstein of New Jersey Globe reports that “Biden taps North Jersey lawyer as first Muslim to serve as a federal appellate court judge; Adeel Mangi named to replace Joseph Greenaway as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.”

The White House today issued a news release titled “President Biden Names Forty-Second Round of Judicial Nominees.”

“US Supreme Court’s Ethics Code Borrows From Other Judges — But Not Always; Supreme Court announced conduct code following controversies; Justices’ version reflects ‘unique institutional setting’”: Zoe Tillman of Bloomberg News has this report.

Joan Biskupic of CNN has a news analysis headlined “Why the Supreme Court says ethics controversies are just a ‘misunderstanding.’”

In commentary, The Washington Post has published an editorial titled “Supreme Court’s new ethics code is a bigger deal than the critics claim.”

Online at The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s ethics code amounts to ‘You’re not the boss of me.’”

Online at CNN, law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has an essay titled “The Supreme Court code of conduct misses this big thing.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s New Code of Conduct Won’t Change a Thing; Although the justices can say they are not tone deaf to their own ethical lapses, they will continue to be the judges of their own ethical propriety.”

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s new ethics code is a joke; The code is so weak that it serves to legitimize Clarence Thomas’s corruption; It is literally worse than nothing.”

At “Dorf on Law,” Michael C. Dorf has a blog post titled “The Status of the SCOTUS Code of Conduct.”

And online at The New Yorker, Andy Borowitz’s “The Borowitz Report” has a post titled “Clarence Thomas Collapses from Exhaustion After First Full Day of Regulating Himself.”

“Learning What Has Been Forgotten”: Third Circuit Judge Paul B. Matey has this post at “The New Digest” Substack site.

“The Liberal Agenda of the 1960s Has Reached a Fork in the Road”: Online at The New York Times, columnist Thomas B. Edsall has an essay that begins, “What do the strikingly different public responses to two recent Supreme Court rulings — one on abortion, the other on affirmative action — suggest about the prospects for the liberal agenda?”

“‘Passion and Prejudice’: Mitsubishi Seeks to Overturn Nearly $1B Defective Seatbelt Verdict; The filing comes on the heels of a motion for delay damages that seeks to raise the total award to more than $1 billion, and at a time when both sides are expanding their appellate firepower.” Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has this report, in which I am mentioned.