“A Partially Annotated Version of SCOTUS’s Section 3 Case”: Eric Segall has this blog post at ‘Dorf on Law.”

“The Court’s Colorado Decision Wasn’t About the Law; This case wasn’t decided on its merits, and the result is an utterly flimsy legal argument”: George T. Conway III has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“A leaked memo offers details on the case against Penn law professor Amy Wax, accused of racist speech and behavior; In addition to sanctions against her, a university hearing board also recommended her classes be recorded and taught outside the law school buildings”: Susan Snyder of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

The Washington Free Beacon previously posted the memo online.

“Alabama Bill to Protect I.V.F. Would Reopen Clinics but Curb Patient Rights; Here’s what to know about the legislation, which the state legislature is expected to approve overwhelmingly on Wednesday”: Jan Hoffman of The New York Times has this report.

“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.

“Trump Prevails in Supreme Court Challenge to His Eligibility; The justices ruled that the 14th Amendment did not allow Colorado to bar the former president from the state’s primary ballot”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rejects Colorado ruling, keeps Trump on ballot nationwide; While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on Colorado ballot despite Jan. 6 attack.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Restores Donald Trump’s Ballot Eligibility; Justices reverse Colorado ruling that disqualified Trump for role in Capitol attack.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rules Donald Trump can stay on Colorado ballot ahead of Super Tuesday; The Supreme Court said Colorado can’t use an anti-insurrectionist provision of the Constitution to kick Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court unanimously rejects attempts to ban Trump from ballots over Jan. 6 Capitol riot.”

You can access today’s per curiam ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, at this link.

“Federal appeals court OKs block of key provision of Florida’s ‘Stop WOKE Act’”: Douglas Soule of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

Anumita Kaur of The Washington Post reports that “Appeals court blocks Fla. ‘Stop Woke Act,’ says it’s a ‘First Amendment sin’; A three-judge panel upheld a previous ruling that said the state law violates private companies’ right to freedom of speech and expression.”

And Kayla Goggin of Courthouse News Service reports that “Florida ban on ‘woke’ workplace training violates First Amendment, 11th Circuit rules; Florida’s prohibition of mandatory workplace diversity training promoting progressive ideas is “poison, not antidote,” to free speech, the appeals court found.”

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

“What’s behind the Supreme Court’s furious agreement on Trump in Colorado”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“It’s Past Time to Quit Hoping the Courts Are Going to Stop Trump”: Law professor Richard L Hasen and Dahlia Lithwick have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with the majority over Trump, but admonished the liberals instead”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Judicial Notice (03.02.24): Big Tech, Bigger Questions; Elon Musk sues Sam Altman and Open AI, the social-media cases hit SCOTUS, Paul Hastings strikes again, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

Programming note: The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will issue one or more opinions in argued cases beginning shortly after 10 a.m. eastern time on Monday, March 4, 2024. Once posted online, you can access the opinion(s) via this Court’s home page and its opinions page.

I will be traveling from the west coast to the east coast on Monday, so additional posts will not appear here until Monday night.

“When the Supreme Court Rules on Colorado’s Ballot, Pay Attention to What It Doesn’t Say; A guide to understanding what the ruling could mean, and what the media will simplify it into meaning”: Ian Bassin and Dahlia Lithwick have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Enormous Pressures About to Land on Judge Tanya Chutkan: The Supreme Court made a Jan. 6 Trump trial harder — but not impossible.” Ankush Khardori has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Yet More Donald Trump Cases Head to the Supreme Court: The Court takes up two cases that could do a great deal of damage to one or more of the four criminal cases that the former President faces.” Amy Davidson Sorkin has this Comment online at The New Yorker.

“Why ‘Fetal Personhood’ Is Roiling the Right; An Alabama decision on I.V.F. has put an uncompromising principle on a collision course with political reality”: Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine has this report.

“Backlogged with blockbuster cases, Supreme Court takes on Trump; Justices are considering Donald Trump’s immunity appeal amid a glut of other high-profile, impactful decisions and emergency requests”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“Appeals Court Intervenes in Legal Showdown on the Texas Border; Action by the appeals court was likely to speed up a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on a wide-ranging Texas immigration enforcement law”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

And Priscilla Alvarez of CNN reports that “Federal appeals court to allow controversial Texas immigration law to take effect, if SCOTUS doesn’t intervene.”

“Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Monday on Trump’s Eligibility to Hold Office; An unusual announcement from the court provided a strong hint that the justices will act the day before the primaries on Super Tuesday”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to post a decision Monday, possibly on Trump ballot access; The outcome of Donald Trump’s challenge to a Colorado ruling barring him from the ballot is highly anticipated ahead of Super Tuesday.”

“US judge pledges discrimination-free courts after diversity policy complaints; Judge Diane Sykes sends letter to Senators John Kennedy and Ted Cruz; Letter does not address if three judges’ standing orders will change”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Colorado votes Tuesday. The Supreme Court hasn’t said if votes for Trump will count. Their apparent unanimity on a highly charged political issue had suggested a fast decision on a case that had already been fast-tracked.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

“Homeless crackdown gains momentum in California as US Supreme Court test looms”: Daniel Trotta of Reuters has this report.

“US judiciary lifts ban on staff political activities after court loss”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“State panel approves Gabrielle Wolohojian, Healey’s former romantic partner, for Supreme Judicial Court bench”: Matt Stout of The Boston Globe has this report.

And Chris Van Buskirk of The Boston Herald reports that “Gov. Healey’s former romantic partner, Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian, approved to SJC.”

“The Supreme Court has a different view of emergencies than we do”: Dahlia Lithwick and law professor Steve Vladeck have this essay online at CNN.