“Prosecutors defend Pam Bondi’s impartiality in Mangione murder case; Mangione’s defense team claims Bondi should recuse herself from his case because of her ties to a lobbying firm that worked with United Healthcare”: Erik Uebelacker of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“NC judges rule against Gov. Josh Stein on power to fill vacancies on top courts”: Kyle Ingram of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.

And Sydney Haulenbeek of Courthouse News Service reports that “North Carolina governor can’t claw back judicial appointment power; Governor Josh Stein was seeking to regain sole control over vacancies in the state’s Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, rather than being required to choose from a list of nominees presented by the political party of the departing judge.”

You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals at this link.

“Senate Judiciary clashes over judicial impeachments, rising threats against judges; Republicans have renewed an effort to remove a pair of federal judges who they said have abused their power, but some expert witnesses and Democrat warned that such a campaign could further threaten federal courts”: Benjamin S. Weiss of Courthouse News Service has this report.

And Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law reports that “Senate Republicans Call to Impeach Federal Judges Over Rulings.”

You can view the video of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing via this link.

“The Supreme Court Could Give the GOP a Political Lifeline”: Ronald Brownstein has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Justice Barrett, Trump v. Slaughter, and Presidential Removal Power from 1881 to 1901; Every president from 1881 to 1901 successfully defended presidential at-will removal power”: Steven Calabresi has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” along with a related post titled “Justice Barrett, Trump v. Slaughter, and Presidential Removal Power from 1901 to 1921; Every president from 1901 to 1921 successfully defended presidential removal power at will.”

“Tom Goldstein’s NYT Story Should be Evidence, Prosecutors Say”: Holly Barker of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access).

Update: You can access the motion at this link.

“Judging Fast and Slow”: Bert I. Huang has this post at the Democracy Project of NYU Law.

“Does the Supreme Court Favor the Rich? The NYT profiles a sloppy and highly problematic empirical study of the Supreme Court.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The Situation: One Judicial Opinion That Sums Up Everything; Judge Paula Xinis’s opinion last month in the Abrego Garcia case is worth a deeper read.” Olivia Manes and Benjamin Wittes have this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“Second-Order Constitutional Theory”: Law professor Aaron Tang has posted this article online at SSRN.

“The Dramatic Arraignment of Nicolás Maduro; By forcibly bringing the ousted President and his wife into jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, Trump will now have to accept that at least two Venezuelans deserve the basic right to due process”: Cristian Farias has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Judge Orders Trump Loyalist to Explain Why She Has Kept U.S. Attorney Title; The ruling was the most robust effort to date to press the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, on why she has continued to serve as the U.S. attorney, despite an order throwing out her appointment”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

You can view the court’s order at this link.

“Court watchers fear Emil Bove’s ‘level of allegiance’ to Trump; Trump’s former personal lawyer may still be in his client’s corner, experts say”: Erica Orden of Politico has this report.

“The 92-Year-Old Judge in the Maduro Case Must Step Aside”: Jeffrey Toobin has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Satanic Temple’s Indiana Abortion Pill Law Suit Fails on Appeal”: Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access).

And Caitlyn Rosen of Courthouse News Service reports that “Seventh Circuit shuts down Satanic Temple challenge to Indiana abortion law; The Satanic Temple challenged Indiana’s near-total abortion law and said it conflicts with the organization’s goals of providing telemedicine abortion care.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

“Abortion pill ban is unconstitutional, Wyoming’s top court rules; The court also struck down a broader prohibition on abortions, citing a state constitution provision that guarantees residents the right to make health care decisions”: Praveena Somasundaram of The Washington Post has this report.

Mead Gruver of The Associated Press reports that “Abortion stays legal in Wyoming as its top court strikes down laws, including first US pill ban.”

Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that “Wyoming Justices Declare Near-Total Abortion Ban Invalid.”

And Hillel Aron of Courthouse News Service reports that “Wyoming Supreme Court overturns state abortion ban; The justices noted, however, that Wyoming voters could still ban abortion via a referendum.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Wyoming at this link.

“John Roberts Thinks 2025 Was a Banner Year For the Constitution; The chief justice’s year-end report is all about preserving a status quo that makes him one of this country’s most powerful politicians”: Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“The Chief Justice’s Big Idea: If Chief Justice Roberts believes agency adjudication shouldn’t create broad policies or affect private rights, the carveout scope would be narrow, and the nature of agency adjudication could also change, potentially shaping the future.” Aaron L. Nielson has this essay online at Civitas Outlook.

“Back in power 5 years later, Trump has all but erased the stain of Jan. 6; In the years since the Capitol riot, Trump has learned it’s nearly impossible to punish a president who decides to test the limits of the Constitution”: Kyle Cheney of Politico has this report.

Ryan J. Reilly of NBC News reports that “Five years after Jan. 6, Trump is rewriting the narrative around the Capitol siege; More actions are expected, including possible payments to compensate Jan. 6 defendants as the White House launches a web page dedicated to Trump’s claims.”

And Sarah D. Wire of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “‘How are we going to defend ourselves?’ Inside the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection.”

“Supreme Court’s 2026 rulings could define America for decades to come; From birthright citizenship to climate lawfare and women’s sports, Supreme Court justices face essential questions”: Ilya Shapiro has this essay online at Fox News.

“Jack Smith’s Closing Argument: The former special prosecutor has no regrets about pursuing a case against Donald Trump.” Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Not Enough Respect for the Judiciary — Or Too Much?” Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho has this essay online at the Per Curiam site of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

“Supreme Court Justice Karen L. Valihura to step down in July; The Justice has informed the Governor she will not seek reappointment”: The Supreme Court of Delaware issued this news release today.

“92-year-old judge handling Maduro case ‘doesn’t give a s–t what anyone thinks about him’; Lawyers who have practiced before the Clinton appointee say he’s known to operate a bit differently”: Josh Gerstein and Erica Orden of Politico have this report.

Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law reports that “Maduro Case Judge, 92, Brings History of Dealing With Trump.”

And Idan Kweller of The Jerusalem Post reports that “Orthodox Jewish judge to preside over Maduro’s criminal proceedings in NY; Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a 92-year-old Orthodox Jewish federal judge, is among the longest-serving active federal judges in the country.”

“Big Tech won in Texas — but the age-verification fight is just getting started; States are mounting a new challenge to Silicon Valley over age verification and parental consent, and while industry just scored an early win, the Supreme Court is likely to have the final say”: Brendan Bordelon of Politico has this report.

“Supreme Court Increasingly Favors the Rich, Economists Say; A new study found that the court’s Republican appointees voted for the wealthier side in cases 70 percent of the time in 2022, up from 45 percent in 1953”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column online at The New York Times.

You can access the research paper that is the subject of this news report at this link.

“The Fast Track To Autocracy: Almost a year on, predictions from an expert on the law of autocracy about Trump’s American takeover have proven eerily prescient.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“Has the Supreme Court Helped Save Democracy?” Richard M. Re has this post at the Democracy Project of NYU Law.

“Hundreds of judges reject Trump’s mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight; Judges have ruled against the administration in more than 1,600 cases”: Kyle Cheney of Politico has this report.

“201. Who is the Chief Justice’s Audience? Reading between the lines, there’s a lot to commend in Chief Justice Roberts’s year-end report. Measured against the year that was, though, its subtleties are for an increasingly shrinking audience.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Trump’s Lasting Damage Will Be the Steady Erosion of Norms”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Judicial Notice (01.04.26): Sticky Situations; An allegedly abusive circuit judge, a shake-up in the conservative legal world, and . . . $530 in gummy bears, on a legal bill?” David Lat has this post at this “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“California ban on open carry of firearms ruled unconstitutional by appeals court”: Clara Harter and Deborah Netburn of The Los Angeles Times have this report.

Aidin Vaziri of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Federal appeals court strikes down California open-carry gun ban.”

Laurel Rosenhall of The New York Times reports that “Federal Appeals Court Says California Open-Carry Ban Is Unconstitutional; A Ninth Circuit panel said the ban ran afoul of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that required courts to evaluate gun laws based on the country’s ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

And Edvard Pettersson of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit strikes down California urban open-carry ban; In a split decision, the appellate panel said a state law that criminalizes openly carrying a firearm in counties with a population of more than 200,000 is unconstitutional.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“The Right-Wing Justices Know Their Favorite Legal Theory Is Bunk; Now that the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc is putting the unitary executive theory to the test, its cracks are beginning to show—and its proponents are flailing”: Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.

“The Supreme Court has delayed direct conflict with Trump, but history suggests that will soon change; The court, with its conservative majority, pushed decisions on contentious issues like birthright citizenship and President Trump’s tariffs into 2026”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.