“The Group Behind Dobbs Does Not Want to Talk About What Comes Next; We sat down with Kristen Waggoner to talk about the anti-abortion legal group’s next targets”: Ian Ward has this Q&A online at Politico Magazine.

“Book Review: ‘Reading the Constitution’ When the Supreme Court Is Grinding It Into Dust, By Stephen Breyer; Two years after leaving the bench, the longtime justice understands neither the crisis at the Supreme Court nor the steps necessary to address it.” G.S. Hans has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Mountainous national monument on California-Oregon border survives major legal challenge”: Kurtis Alexander of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Georgia-Pacific spinoff urges US Supreme Court to skip review of Texas two-step tactic”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“The Supreme Court, Abortion, and Standing in an Incoherent Abyss”: Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”

“What’s at stake in the Supreme Court abortion pill case; Tuesday’s oral argument is focused on whether to overrule the FDA and reimpose some restrictions on getting medication to terminate pregnancy”: Ann E. Marimow and Caroline Kitchener of The Washington Post have this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court’s anti-abortion conservatives could restrict abortion pills sent by mail, even in blue states.”

Laura Kusisto, Jess Bravin, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal report that “Abortion-Pill Case Puts Supreme Court Back in the Hot Seat; The justices are considering whether to roll back access to mifepristone, whose demand has swelled since the high court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has articles headlined “How the Supreme Court case on the abortion drug mifepristone could affect 2024 election; Nearly two-thirds of the public hadn’t heard anything about the case, including about 60% of women of reproductive age living in states where abortion is currently available” and “Abortion pill challenge gives Supreme Court chance to move toward national abortion ban; In the first major abortion case since overturning Roe v. Wade, the high court is considering restrictions on a drug used for medication abortions.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Woman suffered complications from abortion pill, now wants Supreme Court to decide its future.”

Carter Sherman of The Guardian has an article headlined “‘Cruel’: the supreme court could send one-time abortion deserts like Hawaii back in time; States in which abortion is legal but was long inaccessible have benefitted from the FDA’s expansion of a key abortion drug.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court again confronts the issue of abortion, this time over access to widely used medication.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “US Supreme Court abortion pill fight brings claims of distorted science.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rekindles Abortion Debate as Election Fight Looms; Cases involve access to abortion pill, state limits on doctors; Abortion becoming key campaign topic before November vote.”

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has an article headlined “From IVF to birth control, Supreme Court abortion pill case could spark challenges to other drugs; The pharmaceutical industry warns that if courts can second-guess FDA approval of drugs, cases could arise on other contentious issues including vaccines, birth control and hormone therapy.”

John Fritze and Tierney Sneed of CNN report that “Doctors challenging mifepristone face scrutiny over their limited experience with the abortion drug.”

In commentary, Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Supreme Court and Mifepristone: The question in a case about the abortion pill is whether judges can act as a Super FDA on drug approvals.”

And online at The Los Angeles Times, columnist Jackie Calmes has an essay titled “The Supreme Court tackles abortion again. How much will it hurt Republicans in 2024?“

“Second Circuit finds Constellation hard seltzer does not violate Modelo trademark deal; Modelo’s trademark agreement with Constellation Brands was ambiguous as to what ‘beer’ meant, a Second Circuit panel agreed”: Nika Schoonoverof Courthouse News Service has this report on a non-precedential decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court Struggles With Tribal Health Care Funding Case; Federal law encourages tribes to run health care services; Justices consider who is responsible for overhead costs”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Tribal health care funding fight splits Supreme Court; Some justices expressed concern that giving tribes more money for health care would result in a big bill for the government.”

“The Supreme Court will weigh in on the January 6 insurrection. What could possibly go wrong? The Court’s decision could potentially undermine over 300 January 6 prosecutions, including Trump’s.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“What the Abortion-Pill Battle Is Really About: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case set in a reproductive-rights landscape upended by the Dobbs decision.” Amy Davidson Sorkin has this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the April 1, 2024 issue of The New Yorker.

“Complaint against state Supreme Court justice raises questions about judicial ethics; The Committee on Judicial Conduct will decide whether Justice Catherine Connors violated the ethics code in a process that has little public oversight”: Caitlin Andrews of The Maine Monitor has this report.

“Breyer Says He Is Open to Supporting a Supreme Court Age Limit; The retired justice suggested that an 18- or 20-year term could dissuade members of the court from ‘thinking about the next job’ just as effectively as a lifetime appointment does now”: Minho Kim of The New York Times has this report.

Marina Pitofsky of USA Today reports that “Former Justice Stephen Breyer says he has ‘theories’ about who leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.”

Alexandra Marquez of NBC News has a report headlined “Former Justice Stephen Breyer: It’s ‘possible’ Dobbs could be overruled one day; The former Supreme Court justice also told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he’d be ‘amazed’ if the source of the infamous Dobbs leak were a justice.”

And Sanjana Karanth of HuffPost reports that “Breyer Signals Support For Age And Term Limits On Supreme Court Justices; The former justice, who retired at 83 after the consequential Dobbs ruling, said he does not believe it is harmful to impose such limits on the high court.”

“Trump Can Post Smaller Bond in Civil Fraud Case, Court Rules; The former president must post a bond of $175 million within 10 days as he appeals the $454 million judgment against him”: Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum of The New York Times have this report.

You can view the court’s order at this link.

“The next Clarence Thomas? Abortion pill case spotlights rightwing judge and his wife’s shadowy connections. Judge James Ho ruled to restrict mifepristone. His wife Allyson is linked to the anti-abortion group that brought the case.” Melissa Segura of The Guardian 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.