“New York County Clerk Blocks Texas Court Filing Against Doctor Over Abortion Pills; The showdown catapults the interstate abortion wars to a new level”: Pam Belluck of The New York Times has this report.

“The Law Is Clear: You Don’t Need a Passport to Vote; Trump’s latest executive order saying Americans need to prove their citizenship to register is unlawful and harmful.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Trump urges support for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate in unusual intervention; The race has become a proxy war over Trump’s agenda and has attracted record spending by Elon Musk and others”: Patrick Marley of The Washington Post has this report.

“At a Time When Lawyers Feared Defending Government Enemies, One Law Firm Stood Up; A scrappy law firm decided to represent federal workers accused of disloyalty and survived to become a legal behemoth”: Clay Risen has this article online at Politico Magazine.

“The Pathetic, Cowardly Collapse of Big Law; Trump’s actions are an attempt to tilt the scales of justice by using the raw power of government coercion — and they’re working”: Paul Rosenzweig has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Skadden, a Top Law Firm, Is in Talks to Avert an Executive Order; The discussions come as President Trump has taken aim at Wilmer Hale, another big law firm; Other major firms are said to be trying to cut deals with the White House”: Michael S. Schmidt, Ben Protess, Matthew Goldstein, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and Maureen Farrell of The New York Times have this report.

Chris Cameron of The New York Times reports that “Trump Targets WilmerHale, Citing Law Firm’s Connection to Robert Mueller; Mr. Mueller, who worked at WilmerHale before retiring in 2021, had investigated the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian officials during the president’s first term.”

Erin Mulvaney, C. Ryan Barber, and Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal report that “Trump Targets Robert Mueller’s Former Law Firm in Latest Executive Order; White House singles out WilmerHale as it ramps up campaign against firms connected to individuals perceived as political enemies by the president.”

Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “Trump strips security clearances from attorneys at firm that had employed Robert Mueller.”

And Emily R. Siegel of Bloomberg Law reports that “Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties; Trump directs agencies to scrap contracts with firm clients; Former special counsel Robert Mueller is former partner.”

The White House today issued an executive order titled “Addressing Risks From WilmerHale.”

“Bonus 134: What Executive Orders Can (and Can’t) Do; President Trump’s ominous new executive order on election administration is constrained by the limits on what an executive order can directly accomplish, especially outside of the executive branch.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Arizona’s Supreme Court ‘cowgirl’ would’ve hated today’s politics; Sandra Day O’Connor believed in public service and worried about political attacks on the Supreme Court — for good reason”: Scott Bales has this essay online at The Arizona Republic.

“Judicial Rebels: How Dissenting Judges Wage Law’s Quiet Battles — And When the Supreme Court Listens; Dissents in courts of appeals are understudied but have dramatic impact on the legal landscape; This is an analysis of these dissents since the start of 2024.” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Legalytics” Substack site.

“How Donald Trump Throttled Big Law; The President has two goals: to seek revenge and to intimidate lawyers challenging his agenda; Is a top firm’s deal with him a necessary act of survival or a damaging blow to the entire profession?” Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The New Yorker.

And at the “Executive Functions” Substack site, Bob Bauer has a post titled “The Choices Lawyers Make; How they have shaped and will determine the outcome of Trump’s attack on law firms.”

“Superior Court Gives Cold Reception to Popular Argument Against Pa.’s Consent by Registration Law; The court held that the defendant failed to identify any binding case law demonstrating grounds for such differing opinions; ‘While it is true enough that Justice Alito’s concurrence provides a window into the workings of that jurist’s mind,’ the court ruled, ‘concurring opinions have no legal effect and, therefore, are not binding on any court’”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on a per curiam opinion that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued yesterday.