“Lawmakers seek disavowal of Supreme Court’s racist ‘Insular Cases’ that limited rights of people in U.S. territories; A series of early-1900s Supreme Court rulings included discriminatory language and helped ensure that people in U.S. territories would not have the same rights as other Americans”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket Gets a Radical Makeover; The court’s most conservative justices prefer to let unconstitutional laws take effect while the legal process plays out”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Trump’s Jan. 6 Case Could Go On Even if Court Limits Use of Obstruction Law; The federal indictment of Donald Trump for plotting to overturn the 2020 election relies in part on the law that the Supreme Court weighed on Tuesday, but was built to survive without it”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Adult entertainment industry asks Supreme Court to block Texas age-verification requirements for porn sites”: John Fritze of CNN has this report.

“US appeals court decision may deter M&A disclosure-only shareholder suits”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a decision that a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued Monday.

“Hundreds of Jan. 6 Prosecutions — Including Donald Trump’s — Are Suddenly in Peril at the Supreme Court”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “January 6 insurrectionists had a great day in the Supreme Court today; Most of the justices seem to want to make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters.”

“Supreme Court Justice Does Whatever He Felt Like Doing; Clarence Thomas provided no explanation for his absence from oral argument on Monday, which is somehow among his least offensive displays of contempt for the very concept of accountability”: Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“10 Fascinating Facts About SCOTUS to Tide Us Over Until the Justices Wreck the Country in June”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Bootlegging-Adjacent”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast via this link.

“Is the Bell Tolling for Universal Injunctions?” Samuel Bray has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Questions Jan. 6 Charge That Could Affect Hundreds of Cases; Justices to decide whether Enron-era obstruction law applies to rioters’ disruption of Congress.”

Bart Jansen of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court grapples with limits on obstruction charge in Jan. 6 cases; About 350 defendants, one-fourth of the total, have been charged with obstruction in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, so the high court’s decision could have a big impact.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court grapples with obstruction charge lobbed at 350 Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump.”

“The Sixth Circuit Tackles Forum Selection Clauses”: John F. Coyle has this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog.”

“Judge James C. Ho’s Remarks to the Midland County Bar Association”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” reprinting the prepared text of those remarks.