“Supreme Court Appears Poised to Reject Late-Arriving Mail-In Ballots Law; A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law in a case that could upend the way that states handle mail-in ballots throughout the country”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court appears ready to limit mail-in balloting ahead of midterms; Republican groups challenged a law in Mississippi that allows officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after polls close as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Californians may need to mail ballots early as Supreme Court signals support for new election day deadline.”

James Romoser of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Is Skeptical of Mail Ballots That Miss Election Day; Conservative justices voice sympathy with GOP arguments against state laws allowing ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court looks poised to limit mail-in ballots, a possible win for Trump; The Supreme Court is deciding whether absentee ballots must be received — and not just postmarked — by Election Day.”

Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court skeptical of states receiving mail-in ballots past Election Day.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court worries Trump’s attack on late ballots could also threaten early voting; The court heard arguments Monday over whether states should be able to count mail-in ballots after Election Day.”

And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court looks to make Election Day great again; Absentee voting rules nationwide could turn on the justices’ opinions of ballot collection on Civil War battlefields.”

“New Top Prosecutor Named in Embattled U.S. Attorney’s Office; Federal judges appointed Robert Frazer to run New Jersey’s U.S. attorney’s office, which has been in disarray over the past year because of uncertainty about who was in charge”: Tracey Tully and Jonah E. Bromwich of The New York Times have this report.

Jeremy Roebuck of The Washington Post reports that “New top prosecutor named in New Jersey, ending impasse over U.S attorney’s office; Robert Frazer replaces a trio of officials the Justice Department installed to lead the office late last year — an arrangement a federal judge ruled was illegal.”

Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “Judges appoint Robert Frazer as U.S. attorney for N.J. after Alina Habba saga.”

Chris Palmer of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Federal judges appointed another new U.S. Attorney in N.J.; Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Frazer was selected to serve as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, the latest twist in an ongoing leadership saga.”

Matt Friedman and Ry Rivard of Politico report that “Judges appoint career prosecutor as New Jersey US attorney in apparent end to standoff; The appointment will not expire unless and until a presidentially-nominated successor is confirmed.”

Joey Fox of New Jersey Globe reports that “After year of turmoil, District Court appoints career prosecutor as new U.S. Attorney; Robert Frazer, who has two-decade history in U.S. Attorney’s office, chosen by judges.”

And Nikita Biryukov of New Jersey Monitor reports that “Federal judges, Trump administration agree on new US attorney for NJ.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey at this link.

“Two Important Errors at the Watson v. RNC Oral Argument”: Richard Bernstein has this guest post at the “Election Law Blog.”

“The Roberts Court’s Internal Reckoning: The Supreme Court’s shadow docket antics have fractured the judiciary, now internal tensions are spilling out in public and onto the docket.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“Absentee Ballots, Asylum, and Too Many A**holes to Count”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link and on YouTube.

“217. The Virtues and Vices of ‘Certiorari Before Judgment’: The Supreme Court is granting certiorari ‘before judgment’ far more than it ever has before; That may be a good development compared to the immediate alternatives, but is it healthy in the long term?” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Judicial Notice (03.22.26): The $10 Billion Law Firm; Another possible victim of Epstein files fallout, another prosecutor’s potential AI fail, a new Biglaw revenue record, and entertainment lawyers on the move.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.