“Republican-appointed judges raise alarm over Trump attacks on law; Federal D.C. Judge Reggie B. Walton warned Trump’s attacks on hush-money trial judge and others could lead to violence; Reagan, Bush-appointed judges decry Jan. 6 revisionism, threats”: Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post has this report.

“Conservatives Don’t Have a Monopoly on Originalism; The text and historical context of the Constitution provide liberals with ample opportunities to advance their own vision of America”: Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Something Other Than Originalism Explains This Supreme Court”: Law professor Marc O. De Girolami has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“US Efforts to Store Nuclear Waste Poised for High Court Review; Legal battle intensifies over where to store spent fuel; Fifth Circuit vacates licenses for Texas, New Mexico sites”: Daniel Moore of Bloomberg Law has this report discussing an unpublished decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued Wednesday.

“Texas appeals court overturns Crystal Mason’s conviction, 5-year sentence for illegal voting; Mason gained national attention after she was convicted for voting while under supervised release for felony tax fraud; She said she didn’t know she was ineligible to vote”: Karen Brooks Harper of The Texas Tribune has this report.

You can access yesterday’s decision of the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth at this link.

“Does Any Party Have Standing to Challenge FDA Drug Approvals?” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Conservatives Are Getting Comfortable Talking Openly About a National Abortion Ban”: Law professors Reva Siegel and Mary Ziegler have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Next Attack on Medication Abortion Just Has to Be a Little Less Stupid; When conservative activists control the federal bench, bad people who make worse arguments are going to win more often than they might otherwise expect”: Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“The Anti-Abortion Endgame That Erin Hawley Admitted to the Supreme Court”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Also online at Slate, Dara Kass has a Jurisprudence essay titled “Erin Hawley Wants ER Doctors Like Me to Do What, Now?“

“How Justice Thomas’s ‘Nearly Adopted Daughter’ Became His Law Clerk; Justice Clarence Thomas gave Crystal Clanton a home and a job after she left a conservative youth organization in controversy; Then the justice picked her for one of the most coveted positions in the legal world”: Steve Eder and Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times have this report.

“Eastman disciplinary case probably not going to the California Supreme Court just yet”: David Ettinger has this post at the “At the Lectern” blog.

“Muslim Lawyers Recoil at GOP Attacks on Historic Appellate Pick; Conservatives say Adeel Mangi is ally of terrorists, cop killers; Muslim lawyers closely watching nominee’s treatment”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Transgender Lieutenant’s Pronoun Bias Case Revived by 11th Cir.; Case tests pronoun misuse as grounds for hostile work claim; Co-workers repeatedly called transgender officer ‘ma’am’”: Khorri Atkinson of Bloomberg Law has this report on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“FDA Abortion Pill Stance Endangers Patients, Undermines Doctors”: Kristen Waggoner has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“Latest Democratic Opposition Jolts Muslim Judicial Nomination; Sen. Jacky Rosen (D) won’t back Adeel Mangi for Third Circuit; Aggressive conservative campaign aims at historic nominee”: Zach C. Cohen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

Monica Alba and Sahil Kapur of NBC News report that “White House ramps up defense of embattled Muslim American judicial nominee; Biden’s top aides are pushing the Senate to confirm Adeel Mangi to be a U.S. appeals court judge as Sen. Jacky Rosen becomes the third Democrat to oppose him.”

And in commentary, online at The Philadelphia Inquirer, former Third Circuit judge Timothy K. Lewis has an essay titled “Adeel Mangi should be the first Muslim federal appellate judge — if Islamophobia doesn’t interfere; I was nominated for the same federal judgeship as Mangi, and I was treated much better, despite my being only the 16th person of color in that role; This is anti-Muslim bias, plain and simple.”

“UVA Law Professor Discusses Judicial Deference at Harvard Law School’s Annual Scalia Lecture”: Kelly A. Olmos and Ava H. Rem of The Harvard Crimson have this report.

Harvard Law School has posted on YouTube a video titled “2024 Scalia Lecture | Aditya Bamzai, ‘Statutory Interpretation and the Separation of Powers.’“

“Undated Pennsylvania mail-in ballots should not be counted, appeals court rules; The decision sets up a potential Supreme Court showdown over the swing state’s ballots ahead of the November presidential election”: Kim Lyons of Pennsylvania Capital-Star has this report.

Hansi Lo Wang of NPR reports that “An appeals court says ‘undated’ Pennsylvania ballots don’t count.”

And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Third Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Rejects Argument that It Violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act to Not Count Timely But Undated Absentee Ballots in Pennsylvania.”

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

“The Potential Role of the Conscience Objection in a SCOTUS Decision Rejecting Plaintiffs’ Standing in the Mifepristone Case”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“AHM v. FDA reaches the Supreme Court; The plaintiffs’ arguments are not so great”: Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“Will Islamophobia Sink This Judicial Nomination? How Adeel Mangi’s appearance before the Senate went off the rails.” You can access today’s episode of Slate’s “What Next” podcast, featuring Nate Raymond of Reuters as the guest, via this link.

Online at The Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Jonathan Zimmerman has an essay titled “Who will stand up to the ‘crazies’ now? Republicans are suggesting that Adeel Mangi, a Muslim judicial candidate, is soft on terrorism; Bias is at the heart of the claims; But no one in the GOP is brave enough to call his critics out.”

And online at The Newark(N.J.) Star-Ledger, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has an essay titled “Senate attacks on Muslim appellate court nominee Adeel Mangi are vile.”

“When they ratified the Second Amendment, our Founders did not intend to bind the nation in a straitjacket of 18th-century legislation, nor did they mean to prevent future generations from protecting themselves against gun violence more rampant and destructive than the Founders could have possibly imagined.” So begins the opinion of Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause dissenting from an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today denying rehearing en banc in the case captioned Lara v. Comm’r Pa. State Police (access the three-judge panel’s opinion here).

Six of the Third Circuit’s 13 active judges (consisting of all of the Democratic appointees in regular active service on that court) noted in today’s order that they voted in favor of rehearing en banc, falling one vote shy of the majority needed to grant full-court review.

“Private School’s Tax Exempt Status Evades Title IX Mandate; ‘Federal assistance’ means ‘financial grants,’ court says; Expert said ‘shockwaves’ would result if case greenlighted”: Peter Hayes of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court Scoffs at Flimsy Abortion Pill Argument; With the exception of Samuel Alito, the justices indicated that challengers to the FDA’s mifepristone approval lack standing”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Investiture Ceremony for Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit plans to live-stream the ceremony on YouTube starting at 5 p.m. eastern time via this link.

“Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas Migrant Arrest Law; The decision in favor of the federal government left in place a trial court injunction while courts determine whether the measure is legal”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

Maria Sacchetti of The Washington Post reports that “U.S. appeals court keeps block on Texas immigration law.”

Elizabeth Findell of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Keeps Texas Immigration Law on Pause; State plan to arrest, deport migrants faces constitutional challenge.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Appeals court rejects border ‘invasion’ claims, issues new block on Texas’ strict immigration law.”

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “Divided appeals court extends block on Texas immigration law; The appeals court for a second time said the state law cannot go into effect as Texas appeals a ruling that blocked it.”

Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Appeals court keeps controversial Texas immigration law on hold.”

Daniel Wiessner and Ted Hesson of Reuters report that “US court keeps Texas border security law on hold in win for Biden.”

Kevin McGill of The Associated Press reports that “Texas’ migrant arrest law will remain on hold under new court ruling.”

Madlin Mekelburg of Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Deportation Law Stays Blocked Until Appeal Is Resolved; Law calling for state to arrest migrants stays blocked for now; US says law undermines decades of precedent on immigration.”

And Kirk McDaniel of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fifth Circuit rejects Texas’s attempt to enforce state immigration law; Texas again failed to convince the courts to allow its controversial immigration law to take effect while the challenges against it proceed.”

You can access last night’s 121-page decision of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Appellate Judge To Receive Jefferson Medal in Law; Roger L. Gregory Became First Black Jurist on Fourth Circuit”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“Reconsidering Motions-Panel Decisions on Appeal Dismissals; A divided Eighth Circuit held that a merits panel could review a motions panel’s denial of a motion to dismiss an appeal; The court went on to hold that a purported Rule 59(e) motion did not reset the appeal clock”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog about a decision that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued last Thursday.

“Supreme Court’s Texas Order Highlights Abuse of Dubious Shortcut”: Will Havemann has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“A fast-moving argument over medication abortion”: Mark Walsh has this View from the Court post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Transcript: Stephen Breyer, Former Supreme Court Justice & Author, ‘Reading the Constitution.’” You can access the transcript of this afternoon’s Washington Post Live interview at this link.

“Two Supreme Court Justices Favor Zombie Law From 1873 to Ban Abortion; Justices Alito and Thomas just lent credibility to the Christian right’s attempt to revive the Comstock Act”: Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic has this report.

And at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine, Irin Carmon has a post titled “The Supreme Court Conservatives’ Victorian Fantasy on Abortion.”

“The Abortion Pill Fight Isn’t Over. Foes Look to 1873 Obscenity Law; The Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of ‘lewd materials’; International groups have pledged to keep mailing mifepristone”: Madlin Mekelburg of Bloomberg News has this report.

“The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law.” Law professors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw have this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“The Current Attack on Abortion Pills Will Fail. The Next One Will Be So Much Worse.” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Even the Supreme Court seems sick of its abortion pills case; The lawsuit challenging mifepristone should have never been heard by any court.”

“Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Doctors Seeking to Curtail Abortion Pill Access; A majority of the justices raised questions about whether a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations trying to sharply limit access to the widely used drug could show they suffered harm”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Caroline Kitchener of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court skeptical of efforts to restrict access to abortion pill; A majority of justices seemed to doubt the antiabortion doctors had legal standing to challenge rules on mifepristone.”

Maureen Groppe and Dan Morrison of USA Today report that “Supreme Court arguments on abortion pill could unify judges; Conservative and liberal justices took turns dismantling arguments by a group of anti-abortion doctors seeking to roll back access to mifepristone.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Justices seem skeptical of challenge to restrict access to abortion pill.”