“A Numbers Game: Who Would The Judicial Conference’s New Policy Help And Who Would It Hurt? It will be harder for conservative litigants in blue states and liberal litigants in red states to obtain statewide relief. It will be harder for conservative litigants in red states to obtain nationwide relief. Liberal litigants will have virtually unchanged odds to obtain nationwide relief.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court Confronts Claim White House Bullied Social Giants; Justices to consider if US went too far on misinformation; Supreme Court social media focus critical in election year”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Who Gets to Lie Online? On Monday, the Supreme Court hears a case about the government’s ability to combat online misinformation about COVID and elections.” You can access today’s new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“The Supreme Court’s puzzling decision to allow the government to ban drag shows, explained; This is a serious blow to the First Amendment and a victory for a notoriously anti-LGBTQ judge”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“U.S. courts clarify policy limiting ‘judge shopping’; On Tuesday, officials said a new policy would mean assigning certain cases randomly. Now they say it is just guidance”: Tobi Raji of The Washington Post has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “US judiciary says courts have discretion to adopt ‘judge shopping’ policy.”

And Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law reports that “Judiciary Issues Guidance to Courts on New Judge Shopping Policy.”

“Does Having a Gun Make a Person Suspicious? Courts Aren’t Sure Now. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could allow more New Yorkers to carry guns is raising thorny questions and has jeopardized at least one case so far.” Karen Zraick of The New York Times has this report.