“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.

“The Supreme Court Steps Back From the Edge”: Linda Greenhouse has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court Poised to Allow Emergency Abortions in Idaho; Opinion was briefly posted on the court’s website and removed; Hospitals would be allowed to protect pregnant mother’s health”: Greg Stohr, Kimberly Robinson, and Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg News have this report.

Bloomberg News has posted online a PDF of the document at this link.

Programming note: On Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. eastern time, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue rulings in various cases argued earlier this Term that have yet to be decided. Once the Court posts its decisions online, you can access them via this link.

I will post more about these decisions later in the day on Wednesday. However, at 10 a.m., I need to be in court, where I will be waiting to present oral argument for the plaintiffs/appellees/cross-appellants in this case.

“This Clarence Thomas Dissent Reveals His Favorite Tactic for Constitutional Mayhem”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Trump Immunity Case Just One Supreme Court Decision That Could Shape U.S. Politics; High court poised to rule on several blockbuster cases as presidential race begins”: Jess Bravin and Annie Linskey of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“The John Roberts Balancing Act Is Back, at Least for Guns”: Professor Saul Cornell has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Three Trump Appointees In Rahimi: Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are fracturing over originalism.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” along with a post titled “Rahimi, Meenie, Miney, Mo; After Only Two Years Bruen‘s Gotta Go!“

“Why Justice Sotomayor’s rare reference to Dobbs may be a warning from liberals”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“Justice Department urges Supreme Court to decide if felons can be barred from having a gun; The request came days after the high court offered some clarification on testing the constitutionality of gun restrictions”: Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

“‘Lifesaving decision’: Activists praise Supreme Court ruling in Arlington firearms case.” Lillie Davidson of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has this report.

“Early divisions signal bitter internal conflicts as Supreme Court turns toward final decisions”: John Fritze of CNN has this report.

“Oklahoma Supreme Court Says No to State Funding for a Religious Charter School; In a closely watched case, Oklahoma’s highest court blocked what was set to become the nation’s first religious charter school; An appeal is likely”: Sarah Mervosh of The New York Times has this report.

Michelle Boorstein of The Washington Post reports that “Oklahoma court rejects proposed religious public charter school; The state Supreme Court said the first-of-its-kind school, approved last year by the charter school board, violated the state and U.S. constitution.”

And Sara Randazzo and Matt Barnum of The Wall Street Journal report that “Religious Charter School Is Unconstitutional, Oklahoma High Court Rules; Case tests how far religion can encroach in public schools, observers say.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma both here and here.

“Ketanji Brown Jackson Reminds Supreme Court That Its Decisions Have Real-World Consequences; The junior justice’s concurring opinion in Rahimi calls out her colleagues for allowing lower court judges, lawmakers, and normal people to twist in the wind”: Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“The Twisted Career of the term ‘Liberty Interest’ Gets Twistier Still in Dep’t of State v. Muñoz“: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Tennessee is sued over law that criminalizes helping minors get abortions without parental approval”: Kimberlee Kruesi of The Associated Press has this report.

“As conservatives target same-sex marriage, its power is only getting clearer”: Abbie E. Goldberg has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“High Court unanimously rules against exemption for haredim in IDF; Likud: Peculiar that the High Court is forcing ultra-Orthodox conscription; Ruling also calls to freeze funding of yeshivas who do not comply.” Yonah Jeremy Bob of The Jerusalem Post has this report.

And Aaron Boxerman of The New York Times reports that “Israel’s Supreme Court Rules the Military Must Draft Ultra-Orthodox Jews; The court ruled there was no basis to exempt the ultra-Orthodox from service, a decision that threatened to split Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government amid the war in Gaza.”

“The Army Made Her Plead Guilty or Face Prison for Being Gay. She’s Still Paying the Price. LGBTQ veterans and advocates want justice for discrimination and are frustrated that an upcoming VA change for so-called bad paper discharges may not achieve that.” Anne Marshall-Chalmers has this article online at The War Horse.

“In Texas, the Fight Over Abortion Has Gotten Hyperlocal; From billboards to attempts at restricting roads to two college professors trying to track students’ movements, the state has become a battleground in a whole new way”: Laura Hallas has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Is the United States Too Devoted to the Constitution? A new book argues that worship of the Constitution has distorted our politics.” Law professor John Fabian Witt has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Transgender Rights Advocates’ Last Best Hope Is Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“On Dobbs Anniversary, Democrats Look to Make the Court a Campaign Issue; An outside group supporting President Biden is embarking on a million-dollar campaign to focus voters’ attention on the makeup of the Supreme Court”: Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Dubious Use of History in Department of State v. Munoz; Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion includes significant efforts, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history”: Ilya Somin has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“US Supreme Court divisions expected to be exposed as final rulings loom”: John Kruzel and Andrew Chung of Reuters have this report.