“Black GOP-Appointed Former Judge Steps In To Defend Biden’s Muslim Court Pick; ‘I have been deeply disturbed by the unfounded and disturbing attacks against Adeel Mangi,’ former federal judge Timothy Lewis told Senate leaders”: Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost has this report.

And at his “Popular Information” Substack site, Judd Legum has a post titled “Will Senate Democrats cave to an Islamophobic smear campaign?“

“Which Justice Called Sandra Day O’Connor the ‘Worst Thing to Happen to the Federal Bench’? Supreme Court justices rarely say anything negative about each other in public. According to an Arizona lawmaker, one unnamed justice’s trip to NYU some 15 years ago went differently.” Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Sonia Sotomayor Should Retire Now; If she leaves the Court this year, President Joe Biden will nominate a young and reliably liberal judge to replace her”: Josh Barro has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

“Fifth Circuit Decision Granting Texas Parents a Right to Veto Federal Access to Contraception is a Hot Mess”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“The Priorities of the Judicial Conference of the United States; Rather than addressing bankruptcy and patent forum and judge shopping, on which there is a large bipartisan consensus, the Judicial Conference rushed through a botched proposal in response to political pressure and Twitter noise”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Viviano won’t seek reelection to Michigan Supreme Court”: Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News has this report.

And Jameson Cook of Macomb Daily reports that “David Viviano to step down as state Supreme Court justice; Sterling Heights resident, former Macomb County judge won’t seek re-election.”

“How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation; Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online”: Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times have this report.

Naomi Nix, Cat Zakrzewski, and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “‘Jawboning’ politicians who push to delete social media posts draw scrutiny; The Supreme Court is set to decide whether government demands to remove social media posts are censorship.”

Jan Wolfe and Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal report that “Covid-Era Case on Free Speech to Test Supreme Court; Justices to consider whether federal officials unlawfully pressured tech companies to suppress posts opposed to vaccines.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to decide if White House went too far fighting social media misinformation; The case grew out of concern from conservatives that their views were being suppressed about 2020 election fraud, COVID-19 origins and treatments and other issues.”

John Fritze and Brian Fung of CNN report that “Supreme Court to debate whether White House crosses First Amendment line on social media disinformation.”

At the “Lawfare” blog, Justin Hendrix and Ryan Goodman have a post titled “A Conspiracy Theory Goes to the Supreme Court: How Did Murthy v Missouri Get This Far?”

And also at the “Lawfare” blog, Mary B. McCord has a post titled “The Supreme Court Cannot Ignore the National Security Implications of the So-Called ‘Jawboning’ Case.”

“A Numbers Game: Who Would The Judicial Conference’s New Policy Help And Who Would It Hurt? It will be harder for conservative litigants in blue states and liberal litigants in red states to obtain statewide relief. It will be harder for conservative litigants in red states to obtain nationwide relief. Liberal litigants will have virtually unchanged odds to obtain nationwide relief.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court Confronts Claim White House Bullied Social Giants; Justices to consider if US went too far on misinformation; Supreme Court social media focus critical in election year”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Who Gets to Lie Online? On Monday, the Supreme Court hears a case about the government’s ability to combat online misinformation about COVID and elections.” You can access today’s new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“The Supreme Court’s puzzling decision to allow the government to ban drag shows, explained; This is a serious blow to the First Amendment and a victory for a notoriously anti-LGBTQ judge”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“U.S. courts clarify policy limiting ‘judge shopping’; On Tuesday, officials said a new policy would mean assigning certain cases randomly. Now they say it is just guidance”: Tobi Raji of The Washington Post has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “US judiciary says courts have discretion to adopt ‘judge shopping’ policy.”

And Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law reports that “Judiciary Issues Guidance to Courts on New Judge Shopping Policy.”

“Does Having a Gun Make a Person Suspicious? Courts Aren’t Sure Now. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could allow more New Yorkers to carry guns is raising thorny questions and has jeopardized at least one case so far.” Karen Zraick of The New York Times has this report.

“After R.B.G. Awards Go to Musk and Murdoch, Justice Ginsburg’s Family Objects; The children of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who championed liberal causes and women’s rights, said the choice of recipients this year was an ‘affront’ to the memory of their mother”: Minho Kim of The New York Times has this report.

And Samantha Chery of The Washington Post reports that “Ginsburg family blasts plan to give RBG Award to Musk, Murdoch, others.”

“Without Senators in Sight, Christine Blasey Ford Retells Her Story; Her lucid memoir, ‘One Way Back,’ describes life before, during and after she testified that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school”: Alexandra Jacobs has this book review online at The New York Times.

“Quiet Fears About Sotomayor Echo Ginsburg Retirement Concerns; Some predecessors faced more public pressure; Politics, health factor into timing of retirements”: Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg News has this report.

“The Supreme Court seems bitterly divided. Two justices say otherwise.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“The Text Of The Policy Approved By The Judicial Conference”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” in which he links to a memo containing the text of the new policy.

“Where does the Judicial Conference Get the Authority To Mandate Case Assignments? A general power to issue orders to judicial employees does not trump a specific power for district courts to make their own rules about case assignments.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” along with a post titled “How Many Judges Sit In Single Judge Divisions? And how many of those judges have issued national injunctions?“

“Democratic senators have privately warned White House that votes aren’t there to confirm Biden’s Muslim judicial nominee”: MJ Lee of CNN has this report.

“Land seizure for ‘fake park’ on Long Island splits U.S. appeals court”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.

“Oral Arguments Set in Monuments Case Aimed at Supreme Court; Arguments scheduled for September in Antiquities Act challenge; Justice Roberts has questioned creation of large monuments”: Bobby Magill of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Appeals Court Denies Peter Navarro’s Motion to Remain Out of Prison; The order on Thursday left Mr. Navarro on track to begin a four-month sentence next week for ignoring a congressional subpoena”: Zach Montague of The New York Times has this report.

And Kyle Cheney of Politico reports that “Appeals court rejects Peter Navarro’s bid to stave off jail time; Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the former Trump adviser is slated to report to prison on March 19.”

“Hoya v. Hoya: Georgetown Law Professors Cole & Katyal to Face Off at Supreme Court.” Georgetown Law has posted this item online today.

“Can Congress Disqualify Trump After the Supreme Court’s Section 3 Ruling? The dueling opinions for the 9-0 decision support two opposing interpretations on this crucial question.” Ned Foley has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“On Rehnquist’s Death, Bush Faces a Decision; The birth of the ‘Roberts Court’”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“Congress needs to clean up the Supreme Court’s mess on patents”: Former Federal Circuit judges Paul Michel and Kathleen O’Malley have this essay online at The Hill.

“How a small city in Oregon could shape the way major U.S. cities handle homelessness; The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month over city and state rules meant to limit homeless encampments”: Liz Kreutz and Alexa Keyes of NBC News have this report.

“Katharine Janes ’21 To Clerk at U.S. Supreme Court; Former SBA President Will Work For Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“Supreme Betrayal: A requiem for Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Judge Shopping Policy Selectively Targets Political Lawsuits; Policy focuses on political lawsuits with national scope; Announcement didn’t directly address patent, bankruptcy litigation”: Michael Shapiro and Lauren Castle of Bloomberg Law have this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “US Senate top Republican McConnell criticizes anti ‘judge shopping’ policy.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin S. Kerr has a post titled “The Case for Caution on Reacting to the Judicial Conference Press Release on Forum-Shopping; We should wait until we know what (if anything) is happening.”

“Trump-Stocked Fifth Circuit Eyes Record Number of En Banc Cases; Court poised to hear high number of en banc cases; Younger court likely behind spike in rehearings”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Supreme Court examines bully pulpit’s power in the digital age; The high court will round out its inquiry on government entanglements with online speech looking at the Biden administration’s efforts to combat vaccine and election misinformation”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“At Second Circuit, global banks battle claims they aided al-Qaida, Taliban; The plaintiffs say that the lenders did business with Pakistani fertilizer plants that provided the terror groups with explosive materials”: Erik Uebelacker of Courthouse News Service has this report.

You can download the audio of today’s Second Circuit oral argument via this link.