“Religious supremacy, not Supremacy Clause, is key to Fifth Circuit contraception ruling; Judge Kyle Duncan held that longstanding federal policy that clinics receiving Title X funding need to provide adolescents with confidential access to contraception is wrong”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“Alabama’s IVF Protection Law Shows the People’s Check on Courts”: David Lat has this new installment of his “Exclusive Jurisdiction” column online at Bloomberg Law.

“Texas teens need parental consent to access birth control, federal appeals court rules”: Bayliss Wagner of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

Pooja Salhotra of The Texas Tribune reports that “5th Circuit upholds Texas law requiring minors to obtain parental consent for contraception; A three-judge panel in New Orleans ruled that a Texas law requiring minors to obtain parental consent to obtain birth control does not conflict with the goals of the federally-funded Title X program, which has given teens birth control confidentially.”

Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that “Court upholds Texas parental consent law for birth control.”

Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has a report headlined “US Law Doesn’t Preempt Texas’ Teen Birth Control Notice Rule; Title X program promotes confidentiality in family planning; Presented conflict between contraceptive access, parent rights.”

And in commentary, online at the Daily Beast, Eleanor Clift has an essay titled “Court’s Contraception Ruling Is a Scary Sign of What May Come; A Fifth Circuit decision backing a Texas contraception law shows the conservative fight is just beginning.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Is the End of the Filibuster Near? The Senate’s signature procedural tactic is losing some of its staunchest defenders in Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, leaving its future in doubt.” Carl Hulse of The New York Times has this new installment of his “Congressional Memo” column.

“Extra Burden or Fewer Late Nights? What Lawyers Think of 3rd Circuit’s New 5 P.M. Filing Deadline; Some attorneys expect work-life balance benefits while others aren’t quite sold on the earlier deadline but are getting used to it.” Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Conservative US judges criticize new rule curbing ‘judge shopping’; 5th Circuit Judges Edith Jones, James Ho issue critical statements; 5th Circuit hears appeals from Texas courts at issue in policy change”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Why Are Democrats Turning Their Backs On People In States With GOP Senators? Senate Democrats often talk about what they’d ‘lose’ by getting rid of blue slips; They rarely acknowledge what they’ve already lost by keeping them.” Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“The Judicial Conference Legislates From The Shadow Docket; The Chief Justice and his associates target only one type of forum shopping in response to political criticism through a secret policy that will not be released for months”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Also at that blog, Samuel Bray has a related post titled “A Welcome Judicial Reform: Towards Random Case Assignment.”

“It’s Too Soon to Say if the Colorado Ballot Case Was a Loss for Anti-Trump Forces; Yes, the Supreme Court kept Trump on the ballot, but requiems for failed constitutional litigation — as Lincoln’s Chief Justice appointment knew — are often premature; Here’s why”: Law professor Mark A. Graber has this essay online at Washington Monthly.

“Judicial Review, the Supreme Court, and a Possible Constitutional Apocalypse”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“On race-based school admissions, the Supreme Court flinched”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The People Rooting for the End of IVF; An Alabama court ruling that recognized an embryo as a child has put the popular fertility treatment into the center of a national ethics debate”: Elaine Godfrey of The Atlantic has this report.

“New Federal Judiciary Rule Will Limit ‘Forum Shopping’ by Plaintiffs; For years, litigants have tried to cherry-pick the judges in sweeping cases on abortion and immigration; Random judge selection is about to make that harder”: Mattathias Schwartz of The New York Times has this report.

And Tobi Raji and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “U.S. courts require random judge assignments to avoid ‘judge shopping.’”

“Sotomayor and Barrett, Lately at Odds, Discuss Relations at the Supreme Court; A conversation on civics and civility included discussion of whether the court is more like a really good preschool or an arranged marriage with no possibility of divorce”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

John Fritze of CNN reports that “Justices Barrett and Sotomayor urge Americans to tone down political rhetoric despite charged atmosphere.”

And Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Barrett, Sotomayor Emphasize Harmony on Heels of Public Chiding; Justices tout collegiality at embattled Supreme Court; Barrett earlier took issue with tone of liberal concurrence.”

Civic Learning Week has posted on YouTube a video titled “Featured Conversation with US Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett — CLW 2024.”

“The Supreme Court may let Texas get away with a totally unconstitutional deportation law; Texas Republicans are trying to rewrite the Constitution — and this Supreme Court could let them”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Abused teen in Snap case asks US Supreme Court to revisit internet publisher immunity”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“US Marshals Seeks Funds to Protect Justices’ Homes Full Time; Marshals say permanent staff needed for home security; Cites strain caused by security for other ‘high-visibility’ cases”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “US Marshals Service seeks $38 million for new judge security programs.”

“US federal judiciary moves to curtail ‘judge shopping’ tactic”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

Jacqueline Thomsen and Lydia Wheeler report that “Federal Courts Aim to Curb Judge Shopping With New Policy; Policy appears related to the rise of national injunctions; Judge shopping has come up repeatedly in Texas.”

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts today issued a news release titled “Conference Acts to Promote Random Case Assignment.”

And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Republicans will no longer get to handpick their judges when they sue Biden; The federal judiciary’s new rules target ‘judge shopping’; That’s terrible news for Matthew Kacsmaryk and other partisan judges.”

“Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Papers Open for Research at the Library of Congress”: The Library of Congress issued this news release yesterday.

“Are the Justices Still Party Players”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Justice Sotomayor References Rarely Used Procedure: Circuit Certification to U.S. Supreme Court”: Trane Robinson has this post at the “Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog.”

“Biden judicial nominee apologizes to Senate for not disclosing role at event with anti-Israel activists”: Gabe Kaminsky of the Washington Examiner has this report.

“Texas tells Supreme Court its immigration law is key to handling border crisis; The high court faces a Wednesday deadline as it considers whether Texas exceeded its authority by implementing its own migrant deportation infrastructure”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Biden administration proposes $38 million for judicial security after Supreme Court protests; The budget proposal comes after a flood of threats and protests against the Supreme Court, following the leak of draft decision to overturn the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade”: Bart Jansen of USA Today has this report.

“New UVA Law Program Prepares Students for Appellate and Supreme Court Practice”: Melissa Castro Wyatt of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“US appeals court questions bid to block Delaware assault weapons ban”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has a report that begins, “A U.S. appeals court on Monday expressed skepticism about a bid by gun rights groups to block Delaware’s bans on assault weapons and high-capacity firearm magazines in light of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that expanded gun rights.”

“Notice of Transition in Chief Judgeship”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has posted this announcement online.

“Pa. High Court Agrees to Take Up Challenge to State Damages Cap”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on an order that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

“AbbVie Loses Appeal to Keep Documents in AndroGel Suit Secret; Alleged documents were subject to attorney-client privilege; Didn’t prove writ of mandamus was the only available remedy”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued under seal on February 22, 2024 but publicly released today.

“US appeals judges argue suspension of 96-year-old colleague is constitutional; Pauline Newman challenged Federal Circuit’s suspension in D.C. court; Circuit judicial council says Newman’s constitutional challenges must fail”: Blake Brittain of Reuters has this report.

Michael Shapiro of Bloomberg Law reports that “Judge Newman’s Colleagues Move to End Her Reinstatement Lawsuit; Newman was sidelined by Fed. Circuit colleagues in September; Judge’s lawsuit attacks process that led to her suspension.”

And in related news, yesterday Renee C. Quinn of the “IPWatchdog” blog had a post titled “Celebrating 40 Years with Judge Pauline Newman.”

“DAs Are Sanctioned After Improperly Conceding Death Penalty Case; DAs said they reviewed case, talked to victims’ family; Court decided they did neither, imposed nominal sanctions”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access).

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Paul Cassell has a post titled “The Third Circuit Affirms Sanctions Against the Philadelphia D.A.’s Office for Failing to Confer with Crime Victims; The Circuit concludes that the district court appropriately sanctioned the D.A.’s Office for making misleading statements about whether it had conferred with a crime victim’s family.”

On Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued two separate rulings in the case, one dealing with sanctions, and the other dealing with the merits of the case.

“Why the Supreme Court Should Clear the Way for a Pre-Election Trump Trial”: Law professor Kate Shaw has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“The NRA has a case before the Supreme Court that it absolutely should win; It’s one of two cases asking whether the government is allowed to speak freely to private companies”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“The Lies Destroying America: American democracy is losing the battle against disinformation, but all is not lost.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“In Death Penalty Cases, a Texas Court Tests the Supreme Court’s Patience; The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, one law professor said, treats Supreme Court rulings as ‘optional guideposts rather than the commands of a higher tribunal’”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.