“Kevin Ritz — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Phila. Judge Rejects Challenge to $977M Defective Seatbelt Verdict, Adds $33.4M in Delay Damages”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.

“Supreme Court declines to block Texas pornography restriction; The pornography industry challenged the state law’s age-verification provision, saying it places an unlawful burden on adults wishing to access content”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report on an order that the U.S. Supreme Court issued today.

“How the TikTok Law Could Intensify the US-China Tech Spat; The law is almost certain to lead to a Supreme Court case and retaliation against US interests in China”: Brad Stone and Anna Edgerton of Bloomberg Businessweek have this report.

“Florida Democrats hope abortion and marijuana questions draw young voters despite low enthusiasm”: Stephany Matat of The Associated Press has this report.

“Victims of harassment by federal judges often find the judiciary is above the law”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Trump says Republicans always wanted to leave abortion law to states. That’s false. Republicans have consistently pushed for national restrictions on abortion, including former President Donald Trump himself. The 2024 election could give them the opportunity.” Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.

“Remember, SCOTUS — Presidential Immunity Would Apply to Joe Biden, Too; We’re all nervous about what Donald Trump would do with immunity for official acts; But remember, two can play that game”: Michael Tomasky has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Adeel Mangi Downplayed His Involvement With Anti-Israel Think Tank, Emails Show”: Chuck Ross of The Washington Free Beacon has this report.

“Judge Kevin Newsom”: You can access today’s new episode of the “For the Defense with David Oscar Markus” podcast via this link.

“Can this firm invest in only Black women? This case will decide. The legal firepower on both sides of the Fearless Fund case reflects the disparate views on the nature of discrimination and the role of history in shaping public policy.” Julian Mark of The Washington Post has this report.

“A former Democratic Georgia congressman hopes abortion can power his state Supreme Court bid”: Jeff Amy of The Associated Press has this report.

“University drag ban arguments focus on SCOTUS nondiscrimination policy decision; In response to questions from Judge James Ho, the student group’s lawyer, from FIRE, said he was not there to ‘defend’ 2010’s Christian Legal Society v. Martinez decision”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“No More Cutesy Stories About Unlikely Supreme Court Friendships; The justices (and the reporters who cover them) love to tell fun anecdotes about unlikely friendships between ideological opponents, which are cold comfort to real people who just lost their civil rights”: G.S. Hans has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Amid Cases on Abortion and Trump, Roberts Reflects on Supreme Court’s Work; Oral arguments serve a crucial role at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said last week at Georgetown University; But they are not always what they seem”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Why an Immunity Ruling in Trump’s Favor Might Not Alter the Shape of His Trial; Prosecutors believe Donald J. Trump’s official acts in trying to overturn the election should be admissible evidence even if the Supreme Court rules they cannot be the basis of the charges”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Student group urges court to force Texas university to allow drag show”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report. According to the article, “U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a member of the three-judge panel who asked the bulk of the questions, said he was ‘profoundly sympathetic’ to Morris’ free speech arguments.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit via this link.

“Supreme Court takes up prescription dog food, CBD products; With oral arguments completed for the current term, the justices have begun to add to next term’s docket”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Samuel Alito’s Resentment Goes Full Tilt on a Black Day for the Court; The associate justice’s logic on display at the Trump immunity hearing was beyond belief; He’s at the center of one of the darkest days in Supreme Court history”: Michael Tomasky has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Court says state health-care plans can’t exclude gender-affirming surgery”: Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post has this report.

You can access today’s 147-page, 8-to-6 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“SCOTUS Seems to Normalize Authoritarianism”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Democracy Dies at SCOTUS: Justice Alito suggests it’s better for democracy to let presidents commit crime with impunity. Cool.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“Academic Freedom Under Fire: Politicians despise it; Administrators aren’t defending it; But it made our universities great — and we’ll miss it when it’s gone.” Louis Menand has this A Critic at Large essay in the May 6, 2024 issue of The New Yorker.

“78. ‘Writing a Rule . . . for the Ages’: The real problem with Thursday’s argument in the Trump immunity case is the extent to which it reveals a Supreme Court poised to paint itself into a deeply problematic (and unnecessary) corner.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in four new cases.

“Judicial Notice (04.28.24): Be Careful What You Wish For; A judge’s hot-mic mishap, a new firm with $7 million in profits per partner, my contrarian take on Trump immunity, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“US Supreme Court urged to strike lawyers’ $667 mln fee in Blue Cross case”: Mike Scarcella of Reuters has this report.

“The Trumpification of the Supreme Court: The conservative justices have shown they are ready to sacrifice any law or principle to save the former president.” Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Louisiana Will Get a New City After a Yearslong Court Battle; The State Supreme Court cleared the way for a part of Baton Rouge to become the city of St. George; Critics say the white, wealthier enclave separating from the capital could have devastating consequences”: Rick Rojas of The New York Times has this report.

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Louisiana at this link.

“Lawsuits challenging US noncompete ban spotlight 89-year-old Supreme Court precedent”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“A few preliminary reactions to the oral argument in Trump v. United States”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

“How Justice Amy Coney Barrett drove the Supreme Court’s debate on abortion and Trump immunity”: John Fritze of CNN has this report.

“Trump immunity fight turns Supreme Court textualists topsy-turvy; ‘It sure ain’t originalism,’ one critic said”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency — and Donald Trump; In arguments about Presidential immunity, the conservative Justices, who avoided mentioning Trump, made clear that they are less concerned with holding him accountable than with shielding former Presidents from retribution”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction; Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing was memorable for its discussion of coups, assassinations and internments — but very little about the former president’s conduct”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.