“The Carrot and Stick Approach to Innovation”: Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog.

“Conservative Justices Appear Skeptical of Agencies’ Regulatory Power; The Supreme Court considered whether to overrule the seminal 1984 Chevron decision, which requires judges to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Charlie Savage of The New York Times has an article headlined “How a Fishery Case Fits Into a Long-Game Effort to Sap Regulation of Business; The case appears poised to be the next step in the conservative legal movement’s multigenerational effort to chip away at the administrative state.”

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court divided over whether to curb power of federal agencies.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Conservatives Once Hailed This Case; Now They’re at the Supreme Court to Gut It; Justices appear ready to overturn Reagan-era Chevron ruling reining in judges, agreeing with challengers who say it gives federal agencies too much leeway.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “‘How do we know where the line is?’ Supreme Court considers ‘chevron’ principle in major case; In one of the biggest cases of the year, justices warned of ‘uber legislators’ and warned of massive change; The court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of agency regulatory power.”

Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court appears ready to curb power of executive agencies.”

In commentary, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Congress and Chevron Deference; The judicial doctrine has made it easy to abdicate power to bureaucrats.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents.”

“Texas’ migrant-deterring buoys can remain in Rio Grande after appeals court ruling; The action set additional arguments for May and vacated an earlier order that said the floating barrier violated a longstanding federal law”: Aarón Torres of The Dallas Morning News has this report.

And Kierra Frazier of Politico reports that “Texas river border buoys to stay in place while 5th Circuit rehears case; The case will now be reheard by the entire court in May.”

“Mother whose child died in TikTok challenge urges US court to revive lawsuit”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report about an oral argument (access the audio via this link) that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard today.

“Missouri’s COVID Suit Against China Revived”: Haley Anderson has this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog.”

Earlier, Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters had a post titled “COVID mask-hoarding claim revived in Missouri’s longshot case against China.”

You can access last Wednesday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“Abandoning abandonment — appeals court backtracks on jurisdictional oddity”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Today’s case may also attract the Court’s interest. It tees up one of the fiercest (and oldest) fights in administrative law: the Humphrey’s Executor ‘exception’ to the general ‘rule’ that lets a president remove subordinates at will.” So wrote Circuit Judge Don R. Willett in his majority opinion that a partially divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel issued today in the case captioned Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n.

“Appeals court blocks Texas from enforcing book rating law; Plaintiffs claimed that the 2023 law, which required book vendors to rate the explicitness of sexual references in materials sold to schools, was unconstitutionally broad”: William Melhado of The Texas Tribune has this report.

And Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that “Court refuses to revive Texas public school book rating law.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Bodycam: Donna Adelson Arrested at Airport for In-Law’s Murder, Sits Emotionless in Cop Car.” Law&Crime Network has posted this video on YouTube.

“North Carolina ethics panel drops probe over justice’s diversity critique; Panel dismisses complaint against North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls; Earls alleged the investigation violated her First Amendment rights”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

And in commentary, online at Slate, Billy Corriher has a Jurisprudence essay titled “North Carolina GOP Drops Crusade Against Jurist Who Questioned Racial Bias, for Now.”

“Integrity’: An Interview With Judge Pauline Newman; Evaluate the 96-year-old jurist’s mental acuity for yourself by listening to this podcast.” David Lat has posted this new installment of his “Original Jurisdiction” podcast.

In his post, Lat writes, “On January 4, I met with Judge Newman and her clerks in chambers, for about four hours. Last Friday, I interviewed Judge Newman on my podcast, for another hour. I’m now of the view that she’s completely lucid and sane — and I have reason to disbelieve or at least question much of what I’ve read in the takedowns of her.”

“Court rejects Twitter’s claim of right to alert Trump to Jan. 6 search”: Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post has this report.

And Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney of Politico report that “Appeals court won’t revisit Twitter’s fight against Trump probe warrant; But conservative D.C. Circuit judges joined an opinion exalting executive privilege.”

“Supreme Court lets win stand for trans student in Indiana bathroom ban case; The order puts off Supreme Court review of the legality of such bans across the country”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“Big Law Skews Liberal in Amicus Briefs, New Study Finds”: David Lat has this new installment of his “Exclusive Jurisdiction” column online at Bloomberg Law.

“Supreme Court weighs conservative plea to weaken federal agencies; The dispute arising from a fisheries regulation is the latest attack on the federal bureaucracy as part of what has been called a war on the administrative state”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.