“The Supreme Court ‘running of the interns’ comes to the finish line; For decades, Washington’s lowliest denizens delivered the Supreme Court’s most important decisions; Now, the internet has made the beloved tradition nearly obsolete”: Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News has this report.

“How the Supreme Court’s blockbuster ‘Chevron’ ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy”: Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen, and Katie Lobosco of CNN have this report.

“She cemented a conservative Supreme Court, but a ‘cautious’ Justice Barrett sometimes resists the far-right flank; In several recent cases, the Trump appointee has written opinions criticizing conservative colleagues and has at times sided with liberal justices”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Monday: A historic day at the Court.” Lyle Denniston has this blog post.

“Opinionpalooza: The Day SCOTUS Became President; The Supreme Court Has Decided They Know More Than Everyone Else About Everything Ever.” You can access today’s new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

And the newest episode of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast is titled “Chevron Is Dead, Long Live Chevron.”

“Social Conservatives Push Trump on the G.O.P.’s Anti-Abortion Platform; Leaders of the anti-abortion movement sent a letter to Donald J. Trump amid worries he may try to weaken the anti-abortion language in the party platform”: Shane Goldmacher and Jonathan Swan pf The New York Times have this report.

“Texas Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gender Transition Care for Minors; The all-Republican court voted 8 to 1 to leave in effect a law enacted last year during a wave of legislation targeting transgender rights”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

And William Melhado and Asad Jung of The Texas Tribune report that “Texas Supreme Court upholds ban on transition-related care for minors; Parents and medical providers of transgender adolescents sued Texas, challenging the constitutionality of a restriction on puberty blockers and hormone therapy.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consisted of the opinion of the court, three concurring opinions (here, here, and here), and a dissenting opinion.

“A String of Supreme Court Decisions Hits Hard at Environmental Rules; Four cases backed by conservative activists in recent years have combined to diminish the power of the Environmental Protection Agency”: Coral Davenport of The New York Times has this report.

“The Imperial Supreme Court”: Law professor Kate Shaw has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

Also online there, Yuval Levin has a guest essay titled “The Supreme Court Thinks That by Arguing More, We Can Be Less Divided.”

“Supreme Court’s Abortion Rulings May Set the Stage for More Restrictions; The court’s strategy of avoidance and delay cannot last and may have been shaped by a desire to avoid controversy in an election year”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Today’s Alito dissent can become tomorrow’s law; No, the rights to free speech and religious liberty are not under attack, despite warnings from Justice Samuel Alito; But his dissent serves as a warning for what could be yet to come from this court”: Columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“Supreme Court Upends Purdue Pharma’s Opioid Deal — and Bankruptcy Law; The agreement had been slammed for not holding the Sackler family accountable; But without some incentive, they’d have no reason to settle”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“The judicial independence of Ketanji Brown Jackson; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the Supreme Court’s Jan. 6 ruling on Friday”: Columnist Jason Willick has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“6-week abortion ban can take effect, Iowa Supreme Court rules, ending injunction”: William Morris of The Des Moines Register has this report.

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Iowa at this link.

“She Needed an Emergency Abortion. Doctors in Idaho Put Her on a Plane. In states that have banned abortion, hospitals have struggled to treat pregnant women facing health risks. A Supreme Court decision this week did not help.” Kate Zernike of The New York Times has this report.

“Consider the wild gray squirrel, Kagan rebukes her colleagues as court overrules Chevron“: Mark Walsh has this “View from the Court” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And yesterday, Walsh had a post titled “Two oral dissents and more opinion days to come.”

“How a Trump-Beating, #MeToo Legal Legend Lost Her Firm; Roberta Kaplan’s work as a lawyer made her a hero to the left; But behind the scenes, she was known for her poor treatment of colleagues”: Katie J.M. Baker of The New York Times has this report.

“Neil Gorsuch’s Judicial Humility Is Sanctimonious Horseshit; When judges have the chance to further the conservative agenda, Gorsuch is eager to dig in; When judges have the power to protect the rights of unhoused people, he cannot wash his hands of responsibility fast enough”: Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“US Supreme Court’s Purdue decision narrows options for mass torts defendants”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“58-42! Alito’s successful confirmation vote is exact converse of Bork’s defeat.” Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“Chevron By Any Other Name: From ‘Chevron Deference’ to ‘Loper Bright Delegation.’” Adrian Vermeule has this post at “The New Digest” Substack site.

“Two Big Victories for Liberty at the Supreme Court; The Justices continue their repair work on the separation of powers”: This editorial will appear in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Shows Its Hypocrisy in Jan. 6 Ruling; The conservative justices love textualism — unless it conflicts with the outcome they’d like to see”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Weakening Regulatory Agencies Will Be a Key Legacy of the Roberts Court; Two rulings this week by the Republican-appointed majority add to its steady pursuit of enfeebling the ability of the administrative state to impose rules on powerful business interests”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Conservatives Gain Despite Fifth Circuit Setbacks at High Court; Justices reject six out of nine rulings from appeals court so far; Few Fifth Circuit judges drive cases to high court”: Lydia Wheeler and Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law have this report.

“Supreme Court Jeopardizes Opioid Deal, Rejecting Protections for Sacklers; The justices rejected a bankruptcy settlement maneuver that would have protected members of the Sackler family from civil claims related to the opioid epidemic”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Jan Hoffman of The New York Times reports that “Purdue Opioid Settlement on Verge of Collapse After Supreme Court Ruling; Plaintiffs and the company vowed to renegotiate but the talks will be challenging after the court struck down a provision the Sacklers had insisted on in exchange for $6 billion.”

David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement; Plans would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis while protecting the family that owns Purdue Pharma from future lawsuits.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upsets $10-billion opioid settlement because it shields the Sacklers.”

Alexander Gladstone and Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma Deal to Shield Sackler Family; Justices ruled Purdue Pharma’s family owners can’t use the drugmaker’s bankruptcy case to settle civil opioid lawsuits without plaintiffs’ consent.”

Bart Jansen and Maureen Groppe of USA Today report that “Supreme Court throws out multi-billion dollar settlement with Purdue over opioid crisis; Most victims supported the settlement with Purdue Pharma; But the Justice Department said courts couldn’t shield the Sacklers from future lawsuits.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court rules against Purdue Pharma bankruptcy deal shielding family behind OxyContin.”

“In Texas, Infant Mortality Rose After Abortion Ban; Deaths of infants in the state increased by 13 percent in 2022, a study found, driven by fatal birth defects”: Claire Cain Miller of The New York Times has this report.

“Blockbuster Ruling Caps Justice Gorsuch’s Decades Long Quest to Kill Chevron”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg News has this report.

“That Big Jan. 6 Supreme Court Decision Is Not the Win for Trump People Think It Is”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in City of Grant Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined in full and Justice Jackson joined as to the case in which she was not recused. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572. Justice Jackson issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in four argued cases.

1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A349. Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859. Justice Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And the Court issued a per curiam order dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted in Moyle v. United States, No. 23-726. Justice Kagan issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined in full and Justice Jackson joined in part. Justice Barrett issued a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Jackson issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined in full and Justice Gorsuch joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court seeks investigation into leaked document in abortion case”: Jessie Opoien of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s New Leaked Abortion Draft Reeks of Cynicism”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s newly leaked abortion decision, explained; The leaked decision is not a victory for abortion rights.”

“Corruption Law Allows Gifts to State and Local Officials, Supreme Court Rules; The court, which has limited the sweep of several anti-corruption laws, distinguished after-the-fact rewards from before-the-fact bribes”: Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.

“Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Biden Administration’s Contacts With Social Media Companies; The case, one of several this term on how the First Amendment applies to technology platforms, was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.