“Justices Signal Openness to Expanding Appeal Waiver Exceptions”: Jordan Fischer of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices seek escape hatch for far-out criminal sentences under appellate waivers; The justices worried that closing off all expectations to appellate waivers would cement unlawful sentencing decisions and bring the judiciary into disrepute.”

“The Situation: Stand With Anthropic; You might not like the creator of Claude, but its fight with Pete Hegseth is important for the rule of law.” Alan Z. Rozenshtein and Benjamin Wittes have this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“A Remarkable Reversal In Trump v. Biglaw; The DOJ now seeks to ‘undismiss’ its appeals of rulings against its executive orders targeting law firms — less than 24 hours after moving to dismiss the appeals”: David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Incumbent SC Supreme Court Justice John Few abruptly withdraws from heated re-election race”: Anna Wilder and Nick Reynolds of The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina have this report.

“Trump Administration, in Apparent Reversal, Tries to Continue Fight Against Law Firms; The administration told a court on Monday that it was abandoning its defense of executive orders targeting the firms; But on Tuesday, the Justice Department appeared to abruptly change its position”: Michael S. Schmidt, Jonah E. Bromwich, and Devlin Barrett of The New York Times have this report.

“Supreme Court denies appeal in AI-generated art case; The high court declined to decide whether an artificial intelligence machine could author a work under copyright law”: Steve Garrison of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“White House faces thousands of lawsuits as it tries to slow-walk tariff refunds; The Trump administration is attempting to delay the process for repaying importers for duties the Supreme Court struck down last month”: Ari Hawkins of Politico has this report.

“Infiltrating the Supreme Court: A roundtable conversation with top Supreme Court reporters on secrecy at the court, the justices’ ethics and how they do their job at a crucial moment.” Ankush Khardori has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Nine Law Firms Surrendered. Four Law Firms Won.” The New York Times has published this editorial.

“The American Bar Association and the Federalist Society: a few thoughts on taking sides.” William Baude has this post at the “Divided Argument” Substack site.

“214. The Court’s (Selective) Impatience is a Vice: The only theme uniting Monday night’s twin grants of emergency relief is the Republican appointees’ willingness to upend long-settled limits on the Court’s power when, but only when, they *want* to.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Supreme Court Backs Parents in School Gender Disclosure Fight”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report.

“Supreme Court Sides With Religious Parents, Blocking California’s Trans Student Policy; Christian teachers and parents challenged the state’s policies, which they say require schools to hide students’ transgender status from their parents”: Ann E. Marimow of The New York Times has this report.

Julian Mark of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with parents in legal battle over notification for trans students; At issue is a California law prohibiting school policies that require employees to report students’ sexual orientation and gender identity to parents.”

And James Romoser of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Says California Schools Should Notify Parents About Student Gender Changes; Court reinstates judge’s injunction barring schools from using new names, pronouns for students if parents object.”

You can access today’s per curiam decision of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Law Banning Drug Users From Owning Guns; A majority of the justices voiced concerns that the law may be overbroad, lumping together occasional drug users with addicts who threaten public safety”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Julian Mark of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court weighs whether smoking weed can eliminate your right to a gun; The issue before the court is whether the law meets a strict Second Amendment standard that any gun restriction must be consistent with the ‘Nation’s historical tradition.’”

And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Disarming of drug users leaves justices dazed; The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment history test came under fire as the justices struggled to decide whether modern day drug users are the equivalent of founding-era habitual drunkards.”

“Trump Administration Abandons Efforts to Impose Orders on Law Firms; The move amounts to a surrender in a clash that has led many law firms to submit to the president rather than face the threat of his executive orders”: Jonah E. Bromwich and Michael S. Schmidt of The New York Times have this report.

And Mark Berman and Perry Stein of The Washington Post report that “Justice Dept. plans to abandon defense of orders targeting law firms; President Donald Trump’s executive orders imposing sanctions on several law firms had been struck down by judges; His administration now plans to abandon its appeals.”

“In Republican Win, Supreme Court Retains G.O.P. District in New York; A Republican congresswoman had asked the justices to preserve her New York City district, despite a lower-court ruling that it illegally diluted the power of minority voters”: Abbie VanSickle and Grace Ashford of The New York Times have this report.

Julian Mark and Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Republican’s district in New York; A state trial court ordered the state to redraw the district to include a greater number of Black and Latino voters.”

And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Order That Redrew Congressional Map in Staten Island, with Ominous Implications for Voting Rights Act.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Trump Administration to Drop Defense of Law Firm Sanctions; Justice Department plans to withdraw appeals defending punitive executive orders issued by the president, people familiar with the matter said”: Erin Mulvaney and C. Ryan Barber of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“Trump Administration Loses Push to Delay Tariff Refund Fight”: Zoe Tillman of Bloomberg News has this report.

You can access today’s en banc order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

“Scientists Decry ‘Political Attack’ on Reference Manual for Judges; More than two dozen contributors to the manual criticized the deletion of a chapter on climate science by the Federal Judicial Center”: Karen Zraick of The New York Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Over Law Banning Drug Users From Owning Guns; The case involves a Texas man charged after agents found drugs and a gun in his home and tests the constitutionality of the federal law”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report, along with an article headlined “Could a Supreme Court Case Help Hunter Biden Get His Law License Back? The former president’s son says he is watching closely as the justices on Monday hear a case testing the constitutionality of the federal gun law used to convict him.”

“The Conservative Push To Weaken Our Democracy”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link and on YouTube.

“George Mason Tops Harvard, Yale as Trump Judge Law School Source”: Suzanne Monyak and Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law have this report.

“Decades of Presidents Ignoring the War Powers Act Led Us Here”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Fifth Circuit Liberals Chide Judges’ Critiques of Trial Court”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

You can access Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, at this link.

“US Supreme Court scrutinizes gun ownership ban for illegal drug users”: John Kruzel of Reuters has this report.

“How Jeffrey Epstein sought to infiltrate the justice system”: Julie K. Brown and Claire Healy of The Miami Herald have this report.

“The Man Who Broke Into Jail: In Nashville, a criminal-justice activist commits a baffling crime.” James Verini has this article in the March 9, 2026 issue of The New Yorker.

“Yes, Supreme Court Decisions Really Matter. No, that doesn’t mean the wizards in robes are doing magic. The former Solicitor General of the United States puts the tariffs case in its legal realism context.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

Access online the jury notes and the federal district court’s responses thereto in United States v. Thomas C. Goldstein: At this link.

“Judicial Notice (03.01.26): Bluff Called; Tom Goldstein goes all in, Judge Cannon returns to the table, Netflix folds its hand, and Susman Godfrey scoops the pot.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Can you have a gun if you smoke a lot of pot? Supreme Court to decide.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

And in commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Gun Rights for Potheads? Ask the Supreme Court. Are drug users similar to ‘drunkards’ under the Second Amendment?“

“China emerges as big winner from Supreme Court’s tariff ruling; The court ruled just weeks before Trump’s coming trip to China, where he hopes to maintain a delicate trade truce with the world’s second-biggest economy”: Jennifer Jett of NBC News has this report.

“People under 21 can’t have a handgun license in Massachusetts. A push to change that is now before the state’s highest court.” Sean Cotter of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Trump’s Unilateral Attack on Iran Paves Way for Broader Dispute Over War Powers; Critics say the president is violating the Constitution, and many Democrats and at least two Republicans in Congress say they must vote on whether to enter such a conflict”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

And at the “Executive Functions” Substack site, Jack Goldsmith has a post titled “Law is Irrelevant to the U.S. Attack on Iran; And Congress is on the hook as much as the president.”

“Supreme Court considers case involving FBI operative ready to burn everyone; A former undercover asset is pointing fingers at his law enforcement handlers and the ACLU lawyers he later teamed up with”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.