“Yet More Donald Trump Cases Head to the Supreme Court: The Court takes up two cases that could do a great deal of damage to one or more of the four criminal cases that the former President faces.” Amy Davidson Sorkin has this Comment online at The New Yorker.

“Why ‘Fetal Personhood’ Is Roiling the Right; An Alabama decision on I.V.F. has put an uncompromising principle on a collision course with political reality”: Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine has this report.

“Backlogged with blockbuster cases, Supreme Court takes on Trump; Justices are considering Donald Trump’s immunity appeal amid a glut of other high-profile, impactful decisions and emergency requests”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“Appeals Court Intervenes in Legal Showdown on the Texas Border; Action by the appeals court was likely to speed up a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on a wide-ranging Texas immigration enforcement law”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

And Priscilla Alvarez of CNN reports that “Federal appeals court to allow controversial Texas immigration law to take effect, if SCOTUS doesn’t intervene.”

“Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Monday on Trump’s Eligibility to Hold Office; An unusual announcement from the court provided a strong hint that the justices will act the day before the primaries on Super Tuesday”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to post a decision Monday, possibly on Trump ballot access; The outcome of Donald Trump’s challenge to a Colorado ruling barring him from the ballot is highly anticipated ahead of Super Tuesday.”

“US judge pledges discrimination-free courts after diversity policy complaints; Judge Diane Sykes sends letter to Senators John Kennedy and Ted Cruz; Letter does not address if three judges’ standing orders will change”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Colorado votes Tuesday. The Supreme Court hasn’t said if votes for Trump will count. Their apparent unanimity on a highly charged political issue had suggested a fast decision on a case that had already been fast-tracked.” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

“Homeless crackdown gains momentum in California as US Supreme Court test looms”: Daniel Trotta of Reuters has this report.

“US judiciary lifts ban on staff political activities after court loss”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“State panel approves Gabrielle Wolohojian, Healey’s former romantic partner, for Supreme Judicial Court bench”: Matt Stout of The Boston Globe has this report.

And Chris Van Buskirk of The Boston Herald reports that “Gov. Healey’s former romantic partner, Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian, approved to SJC.”

“The Supreme Court has a different view of emergencies than we do”: Dahlia Lithwick and law professor Steve Vladeck have this essay online at CNN.

“On Bump Stocks, the Supreme Court Is Divorced From Reality; It’s bad enough when textualism undermines sensible laws; But it’s truly horrendous when it undermines public safety and empowers murderers”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“John Roberts’s Gay-Rights Surprise: A revelation that would have prevented his nomination doesn’t disrupt it.” Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“In Taking Up Trump’s Immunity Claim, Supreme Court Bolstered His Delay Strategy; By scheduling a hearing for late April on the former president’s assertion that he cannot be prosecuted for his actions in office, the justices increased the chances that he will not face trial by Election Day”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this news analysis.

John Kruzel of Reuters reports that “US Supreme Court’s move to hear Trump’s immunity claim gives him gift of delay.”

Joan Biskupic of CNN has a news analysis headlined “Trump uses the slow legal system to his advantage. The Supreme Court is helping.”

In commentary, online at Politico Magazine, law professor Aziz Huq has an essay titled “Why Is Trump Getting Special Treatment From the Supreme Court? The justices are handling Trump’s case far differently than most criminal defendants.”

And online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Think Trump’s Case Is Moving Too Slowly? Don’t Blame the Supreme Court. It’s frustrating that the most serious charge against the former president, his involvement in Jan. 6, is taking this long to resolve. But that’s not the justices’ fault.”

“Waiting on Supreme Court, States Go It Alone in Trump Ballot Cases; An Illinois judge’s decision to disqualify Donald J. Trump from the primary ballot injected chaos into early voting and added urgency for a federal resolution”: Mitch Smith of The New York Times has this report.

“Alabama IVF ruling highlights importance of state supreme court races in this year’s US elections”: Christine Fernando of The Associated Press has this report.

“McConnell Built Today’s Supreme Court. Will He Come to Regret It? Mitch McConnell went to extraordinary lengths to transform the federal judiciary. But did he win the day for conservatism or for Trump?” Peter S. Canellos has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects move to reconsider state’s congressional maps”: Lawrence Andrea of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“How the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity could turn on a single question”: John Fritze and Tierney Sneed of CNN has this report.

“The Scandal of Clarence Thomas’s New Clerk: Crystal Clanton became notorious for sending outlandishly racist texts; Now she’s been hired to work for the Justice — and a dubious new story has surfaced to clear her name.” Jane Mayer has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.

“An Open Letter To Crystal Clanton: Here’s my advice to the controversial clerk — if she didn’t send an ‘I HATE BLACK PEOPLE’ text, and if she did.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“New website will let law clerks judge their judges”: Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post recently had this report.

“Federal court lets Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for minors take effect”: Caroline Beck of The Indianapolis Star has this report.

And at his Substack site, Chris Geidner has a post titled “Seventh Circuit restricts trans minors’ rights in Indiana without a word explaining why; The appeals court allowed Indiana’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors to go into effect for the first time Tuesday in an unusual, questionable order.”

“AI Use in Law Practice Needs Common Sense, Not More Court Rules”: David Lat has this new installment of his “Exclusive Jurisdiction” column online at Bloomberg Law.

“Why the Supreme Court Had to Hear Trump’s Case; The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was so sweeping that it posed a danger to our constitutional democracy”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and law professor Elizabeth Price Foley will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The Four Internet Analogies of the Apocalypse: How the Supreme Court in the Netchoice oral arguments got snagged on the most basic problem in the history of the Internet, and what that reveals about how they should rule.” Kate Klonick has this post at her Substack site, “The Klonickles.”

“Supreme Court Appears Split Over Ban on Bump Stocks Enacted Under Trump; In a wide-ranging argument, the justices wrestled with the mechanics of gun triggers and the larger implications of the ban both for bump stock owners and the public”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court divided over gun-rights challenge to Trump bump stock ban; While some conservatives were skeptical, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called bump stocks ‘the kind of weapons Congress was intending to prohibit because of the damage they cause.’”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears to favor upholding ban on rapid-fire bump stocks.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Considers Ban on Bump-Stock Firearm Devices; Trump-era decision classified devices as machine guns after Las Vegas massacre.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “‘Functioning like a machine gun’? Supreme Court debates whether bump stocks are illegal; ‘You have to apply a little bit of common sense,’ said Justice Elena Kagan, who used to go hunting with the late Justice Antonin Scalia; Justice Sonia Sotomayer was piqued by an ‘arthritis’ defense.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court grapples with machine gun function versus bump stocks in battle over ban.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “Amy Coney Barrett Gets to Decide If Machine Guns Are Actually Legal; The Supreme Court is looking at the bump stocks that caused the Las Vegas music festival shooting to be so deadly.”

“The Insignificance of Trump’s ‘Immunity from Prosecution’ Argument: If and when the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the stakes will be far less momentous than many observers might assume, because the answer to the immunity question matters very little for Trump’s prosecution.” Marty Lederman had this pre-cert. grant post at the “Lawfare” blog.

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Just Gave Trump Exactly What He Wanted; In a stunning move, the justices all but guaranteed that the former president will evade trial before November.”

“‘One More Stressor’: Three Circuits Keep Panels Secret Until Argument Day; Some appellate attorneys want the Fourth, Seventh and Federal circuits to join the other federal appeals courts in giving more than same-day notice of the judges who will hear their case.” Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Senator Kennedy’s Judicial Pop Quizzes Trip Up Nervous Nominees”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Let Crystal Clanton Move On; Democrats are taking the wrong lesson from this”: Law professor Steven Lubet has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

At Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “Clarence Thomas’s Own-the-Libs Stunt Will Make People’s Lives Worse; How is a Black person supposed to trust a Supreme Court that hires open bigots to write the first draft of constitutional law?”

And at “Dorf on Law,” Eric Segall has a blog post titled “Justice Thomas and Race: Making Life Harder for People of Color One Case at a Time.”

“Pa. High Court Cleared Up a Big Strict Products Liability Law Question in ‘Sullivan’”: Jeffrey F. Laffey has this essay online at The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Philly saw a surge in medical malpractice filings after Pa. change on court location rules; A new system of medical malpractice case management, designed to get through a pandemic backlog, is helping it get through cases more quickly”: Harold Brubaker of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Why Did the Supreme Court Wait So Long to Decide to Set the Trump Criminal Immunity Case for Full Hearing and Argument? It Likely Means No Trial for Trump on Election Subversion Before the Election.” Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April; The former president’s trial on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election will remain on hold while the justices consider the matter”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.