“California Supreme Court considers whether insurers must cover COVID business closures”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

And Joyce E. Cutler of Bloomberg Law has an article headlined “Insurance Case Hinges on Whether Covid Virus Damages Property; Air ‘isn’t even insurable property’ for damage, coverage; Implications for wildfires, odors, issues beyond Covid questioned.”

“The Supreme Court Just Delivered a Rare Self-Own for John Roberts”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Musk’s Bid to Keep SpaceX Labor Suit in Texas Is Denied on Appeal; Musk firm sued NLRB after agency issued complaint on firings; Appeals court including Texas is among the most conservative”: Josh Eidelson of Bloomberg News has this report on a published order accompanied by a dissent that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

“US Supreme Court seeks security funding to protect justices, homes”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court is seeking $19.4 million in federal funds to bolster security for the nine justices and assign protection of their homes to its own police force rather than the U.S. Marshals Service, citing ‘evolving’ risks faced by the nation’s top judicial body.”

“Felon Gun Ban Survives Constitutional Challenge at 11th Circuit; Court says precedent prevents them from revisiting law; Third Circuit earlier said ban failed history, tradition test”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“What’s dividing the Justices (and other initial reactions to the Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson)”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

At “Dorf on Law,” Michael C. Dorf has a blog post titled “Nine Justices in Search of an Excuse to Nullify Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman have a post titled “If Trump Prevails, How Will Section 3 Be Litigated On Or After January 20, 2025? Even under the Trump v. Anderson per curiam opinion, Section 3 can be raised as a defense without the need for federal implementing legislation; But the Supreme Court may still avoid ruling on the merits.”

“SCOTUS Restores Trump to the Colorado Ballot, Unanimously (Kind Of)”: You can access yesterday’s bonus episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“The Supreme Court Just Erased Part of the Constitution”: Columnist David French has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Political Hacks Pretending to be Lawyers”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast via this link.

“In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Cannot Avoid Politics; The justices’ efforts to remain unified in cases affecting the election are fraying as the former president wins one case and is granted a delay in another”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis, along with an article headlined “Justice Amy Coney Barrett Stakes Out Distinctive Stance in Trump Case; The justice distanced herself from the majority, saying it had gone too far, and from the three liberals, saying their tone sent the wrong message.”

“Sonia Sotomayor Must Retire: Democrats are distressed about the conservative court, but not ruthless enough to tell the aging justice to step down in time to avoid shifting the court even farther right.” Josh Barro has this post at his “Very Serious” Substack site.