“New website will let law clerks judge their judges”: Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post recently had this report.

“Federal court lets Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for minors take effect”: Caroline Beck of The Indianapolis Star has this report.

And at his Substack site, Chris Geidner has a post titled “Seventh Circuit restricts trans minors’ rights in Indiana without a word explaining why; The appeals court allowed Indiana’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors to go into effect for the first time Tuesday in an unusual, questionable order.”

“AI Use in Law Practice Needs Common Sense, Not More Court Rules”: David Lat has this new installment of his “Exclusive Jurisdiction” column online at Bloomberg Law.

“Why the Supreme Court Had to Hear Trump’s Case; The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was so sweeping that it posed a danger to our constitutional democracy”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and law professor Elizabeth Price Foley will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The Four Internet Analogies of the Apocalypse: How the Supreme Court in the Netchoice oral arguments got snagged on the most basic problem in the history of the Internet, and what that reveals about how they should rule.” Kate Klonick has this post at her Substack site, “The Klonickles.”

“Supreme Court Appears Split Over Ban on Bump Stocks Enacted Under Trump; In a wide-ranging argument, the justices wrestled with the mechanics of gun triggers and the larger implications of the ban both for bump stock owners and the public”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court divided over gun-rights challenge to Trump bump stock ban; While some conservatives were skeptical, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called bump stocks ‘the kind of weapons Congress was intending to prohibit because of the damage they cause.’”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears to favor upholding ban on rapid-fire bump stocks.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Considers Ban on Bump-Stock Firearm Devices; Trump-era decision classified devices as machine guns after Las Vegas massacre.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “‘Functioning like a machine gun’? Supreme Court debates whether bump stocks are illegal; ‘You have to apply a little bit of common sense,’ said Justice Elena Kagan, who used to go hunting with the late Justice Antonin Scalia; Justice Sonia Sotomayer was piqued by an ‘arthritis’ defense.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court grapples with machine gun function versus bump stocks in battle over ban.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “Amy Coney Barrett Gets to Decide If Machine Guns Are Actually Legal; The Supreme Court is looking at the bump stocks that caused the Las Vegas music festival shooting to be so deadly.”

“The Insignificance of Trump’s ‘Immunity from Prosecution’ Argument: If and when the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the stakes will be far less momentous than many observers might assume, because the answer to the immunity question matters very little for Trump’s prosecution.” Marty Lederman had this pre-cert. grant post at the “Lawfare” blog.

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Just Gave Trump Exactly What He Wanted; In a stunning move, the justices all but guaranteed that the former president will evade trial before November.”

“‘One More Stressor’: Three Circuits Keep Panels Secret Until Argument Day; Some appellate attorneys want the Fourth, Seventh and Federal circuits to join the other federal appeals courts in giving more than same-day notice of the judges who will hear their case.” Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Senator Kennedy’s Judicial Pop Quizzes Trip Up Nervous Nominees”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Let Crystal Clanton Move On; Democrats are taking the wrong lesson from this”: Law professor Steven Lubet has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

At Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “Clarence Thomas’s Own-the-Libs Stunt Will Make People’s Lives Worse; How is a Black person supposed to trust a Supreme Court that hires open bigots to write the first draft of constitutional law?”

And at “Dorf on Law,” Eric Segall has a blog post titled “Justice Thomas and Race: Making Life Harder for People of Color One Case at a Time.”

“Pa. High Court Cleared Up a Big Strict Products Liability Law Question in ‘Sullivan’”: Jeffrey F. Laffey has this essay online at The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Philly saw a surge in medical malpractice filings after Pa. change on court location rules; A new system of medical malpractice case management, designed to get through a pandemic backlog, is helping it get through cases more quickly”: Harold Brubaker of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Why Did the Supreme Court Wait So Long to Decide to Set the Trump Criminal Immunity Case for Full Hearing and Argument? It Likely Means No Trial for Trump on Election Subversion Before the Election.” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April; The former president’s trial on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election will remain on hold while the justices consider the matter”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Is October Term 2024 Full Up? Plus a record high for SCOTUS clerk signing bonuses, and fun facts tied to Notre Dame — go Irish!” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Texas man challenges bump stock ban in Supreme Court, says feds went too far”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law reports that “Bump Stock Ban Brings Agency Power Dispute to Supreme Court.”

“Texas Supreme Court justice seeking reelection under fire for absenteeism, ethics concerns”: Bayliss Wagner of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

And Robert Downen of The Texas Tribune reports that “In leaked audio, Supreme Court Justice John Devine railed against ‘brainwashed’ GOP colleagues; Devine, a former anti-abortion activist, faces a heated primary challenge that has focused on questions about his ethics.”

“Conservatives have won the debate about courts, and liberals know it”: Columnist Ramesh Ponnuru has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment’ of America’s Cities: Martin v. Boise is an abomination that has wreaked havoc on cities across the Ninth Circuit.” Mark Pulliam has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“They’re always guilty . . . or are they? The deceptively simple case of Diaz v. United States.” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“Brett Kavanaugh — Yes, Really — Just Stood Up For the Internet as We Know It: Florida and Texas think they can insist that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies.” Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Seems Wary of State Laws Regulating Social Media Platforms; The tech industry argues that laws in Florida and Texas, prompted by conservative complaints about censorship, violate the First Amendment; The court’s decision could fundamentally alter the nature of speech on the internet”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Cat Zakrzewski of The Washington Post report that “Justices skeptical of Tex., Fla. laws that bar platforms from deleting content.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court questions whether Texas and Florida can regulate social media to ‘protect’ speech.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Questions State Efforts to Regulate Social-Media Content; Justices weigh Florida, Texas laws that limit platforms’ ability to moderate posts.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sounds skeptical of controversial laws to regulate social media companies.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment.”

“The Alabama Supreme Court Embraces Fetal Personhood”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

And the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast is titled “A Series of Lawsuits That We Call an Election: How to fix the laws, and the gaps in the law, that are breaking American democracy” and features law professor Rick Hasen as a guest.

“68. ‘Original’ Writs of Habeas Corpus: A new opinion by Justice Sotomayor highlights one of the Court’s more obscure powers—and the serious constitutional question that could arise from the justices’ unwillingness to ever use it.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Machine gun or firearm toy? Bump stock creator speaks out ahead of Supreme Court hearing on ban. The fate of the controversial accessory will be decided by the justices.” Devin Dwyer, Patty See, and Bobby Gehlen of ABC News have this report.

“Social media cases head to SCOTUS — but conservatives may have already won; Two major cases deal with GOP laws aiming to force Big Tech to carry all users’ viewpoints”: Rebecca Kern of Politico 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.

“The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law”: Columnist Jesse Wegman has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Texas Is Right. The Tech Giants Need to Be Regulated.” Law professor Tim Wu has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“A Conservative Judge’s Critique of the Supreme Court’s Reliance on Tradition; In remarks at Harvard, Judge Kevin C. Newsom said the justices had strayed from originalism in parts of their blockbuster opinions on abortion and guns”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment Applies to Social Media; Challenges to laws in Florida and Texas meant to protect conservative viewpoints are likely to yield a major constitutional ruling on tech platforms’ free speech rights”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Cat Zakrzewski and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court to decide if states can control fate of social media; As a ‘splinternet’ emerges in the United States, the high court will decide if the First Amendment blocks a pair of laws that tackle conservatives’ allegations of Big Tech censorship.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “First Amendment Fight Pits Red States Against Big Tech at Supreme Court; Texas, Florida passed laws requiring social-media platforms to post nearly everything users have to say.”

And Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “Supreme Court readies for major social media free speech battle: Here are the stakes; Whether states can limit the ability of social media giants to moderate content could turn on if Facebook is more like a newspaper or a telephone.”

“Planned Parenthood asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to find 1849 abortion law unconstitutional”: Todd Richmond of The Associated Press has this report.

“The Curious Case of the Mildly Annoyed Judge; Legal journalists often identify the party affiliation of a federal judge’s appointing president; Not everyone is thrilled about this”: Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“How the reversal of Roe v. Wade led to the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children”: Jacqueline Howard of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court offers possible road map for schools to diversify top programs; Considering race is not allowed, but court signals that socioeconomic factors are acceptable”: Laura Meckler and Karina Elwood of The Washington Post have this report.

And Bianca Quilantan of Politico reports that “Thomas Jefferson high school escaped the Supreme Court — and others are eager to follow; Everything from ZIP code-center recruiting to dropping application fees is being used to replace metrics explicitly about an applicant’s race.”