“Exams in the Time of Doctrinal Instability”: Eric Berger has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“The Judiciary Has Policed Itself for Decades. It Doesn’t Work. The secretive Judicial Conference is tasked with self-governance. The group, led by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, has spent decades preserving perks, defending judges and thwarting outside oversight.” Brett Murphy and Kirsten Berg of ProPublica have this report.

“Nicole Berner — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Arizona’s Supreme Court is considering abortion law. Lawyers arguing the case are all men.” Stacey Barchenger of The Arizona Republic has this report.

Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Arizona Supreme Court to decide which Arizona abortion law stands.”

And Joe Duhownik of Courthouse News Service reports that “Arizona Supreme Court hears arguments on future of access to reproductive rights; Two state laws offer conflicting regulations for when abortions are allowed in Arizona.”

ABC15 Arizona has posted the video of today’s oral argument on YouTube at this link.

“Who Determines Kate Cox’s Health Care: In a post-Roe world, it is judges who get to decide what a pregnant person must do with even a nonviable pregnancy.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The heartless treatment of Kate Cox in Texas; A pregnant woman’s doctor gave her bad news; The state made it worse”: Columnist Monica Hesse has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Justice Sandra Day O’Connor protected us from the extremes”: Marci Hamilton has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And Sambhav Sankar has a post titled “A justice stewarding a Constitution.”

“‘How to Interpret the Constitution’ Review: Judicial Values; Opponents of originalism make much of the supposed ambiguities in the Constitution; But is the text of the document really so unclear?” Online at The Wall Street Journal, Tal Fortgang has this review of law professor Cass R. Sunstein‘s new book, “How to Interpret the Constitution.”

“Why Jack Smith Is Taking Trump’s Immunity Claim Straight to the Supreme Court; The special counsel has substantive and procedural reasons for wanting a quick ruling on whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his actions as president”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“SBF’s Lawyer Says His Client Was the ‘Worst’ Ever Under Cross Examination; Stanford Law Professor David Mills, who led defense for FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried as favor to his parents, now fears ‘unwinnable’ case has ended their friendship”: Ava Benny-Morrison of Bloomberg Businessweek has this report.

“Top Court Clears Path for Democrats to Redraw House Map in New York; The ruling could allow Democrats to tilt anywhere from two to six G.O.P.-held seats leftward; Republicans vowed to challenge any gerrymandered map”: Nicholas Fandos of The New York Times has this report on a 4-to-3 ruling that the New York State Court of Appeals issued today.

“An Ohio man sued over a bone in his boneless wing. Ohio’s top court heard the case.” Scott Wartman of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.

“Arizona Supreme Court to hear case that could decide future of legal abortion”: Ray Stern of The Arizona Republic has this report.

“US v. Trump will bring new political misery to the embattled Supreme Court, no matter what the justices do”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“Charlie Adelson will serve life in prison for 2014 murder of Dan Markel”: Jeff Burlew and Elena Barrera of The Tallahassee Democrat have this report.

And Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics has a post titled “Charlie Adelson gets life sentence for someone else’s problem; Phil Markel moves courtroom to tears.”

The Tallahassee Democrat streamed the sentencing proceeding live on YouTube, and you can view the video via this link.

“Crossing State Lines: Texas’s Abortion Bounty-Hunter Law Implicates Those Who Assist Individuals to Get an Abortion Out-of-State, Including Employers.” Hailey Valerio has this post online at the Villanova Law Review.

Earlier, Erin Douglas of The Texas Tribune reported that “Texas abortion law a ‘radical expansion’ of who can sue whom, and an about-face for Republicans on civil lawsuits; Senate Bill 8, which allows anyone to sue anyone who performs or aids in an abortion, marks an unprecedented change to who has standing to bring a lawsuit; The tactic is also an emerging trend in Republican-dominated states that may compromise constitutional rights, some legal experts said.”

“Indigenous women, facing tougher abortion restrictions post-Roe, want Congress to step in”: Sudiksha Kochi of USA Today has this report.

“U Penn president got Delaware judge’s support on LinkedIn. Anger ensued.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Donna Adelson pleads not guilty in Dan Markel murder, asks to be moved off suicide watch”: Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

And Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics has a post titled “Donna Adelson pleads ‘not guilty’, and pleads, and pleads some more.”

“A Texas Case Shows That Abortion Ban Exemptions Are a Sham”: Columnist Michelle Goldberg has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Is Immune From Prosecution; The special counsel, Jack Smith, urged the justices to move with exceptional speed, and they quickly agreed to fast-track the first phase of the case”: Adam Liptak and Alan Feuer of The New York Times have this report.

Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein, Robert Barnes, and Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court will consider fast-tracking Trump appeal in D.C. trial; ‘The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,’ special counsel Jack Smith wrote, calling it ‘an extraordinary case.’”

Jess Bravin and C. Ryan Barber of The Wall Street Journal report that “Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Quickly Rule on Trump’s Immunity; Jack Smith petitions high court to head off appeals process so election-interference trial can start in March.”

John Fritze and Aysha Bagchi of USA Today report that “In ‘extraordinary’ move, prosecutors ask Supreme Court to decide if Trump may claim immunity.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article (incorrectly) headlined “Supreme Court agrees to decide Trump immunity claim against special counsel’s criminal charges.”

“Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Who Sought Court-Approved Abortion; Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

Caroline Kitchener and Maegan Vazquez of The Washington Post report that “Texas Supreme Court rules against woman at center of abortion battle; Kate Cox had already decided to go out of state for procedure after learning that carrying the pregnancy to term could jeopardize her future fertility.”

Bayliss Wagner of The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Texas Supreme Court rules against first woman to seek court-approved abortion in 50 years.”

And Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas Supreme Court blocks order allowing abortion; woman who sought it leaves state; The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Kate Cox did not qualify for an abortion under the medical exception to the state’s near-total abortion ban; Just hours prior, Cox’s lawyers said she’d traveled out of state to have the procedure.”

You can access today’s per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas at this link.

“Supreme Court Eyeing Fifth Circuit, But Too Early to Decipher Why”: Adam Feldman, creator of the “Empirical SCOTUS” blog, has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“Trump Prosecution Team Adds Supreme Court Expert Dreeben”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson and Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law have this report (subscription required for full access).

“Pregnant Texas woman at the center of a legal battle leaves the state to obtain an abortion, attorneys say”: Ashley Killough and Ed Lavandera of CNN have this report.

“Muppetproof”: You can access the new episode of the “Divided Argument” podcast via this link.

“Missouri Republicans propose bills to allow murder charges for people who get abortions”: Kacen Bayless has this front page article in today’s issue of The Kansas City Star.

“Colonialism’s Shadow Hangs Over First Circuit Puerto Rico Trips”: Allie Reed of Bloomberg Law has this very interesting report.

“Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy; Washington State, like more than 20 other states, bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors in their care”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to ‘conversion therapy’ ban.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court turns away case threatening California ban on gay ‘conversion therapy.’”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court lets stand Washington state ‘conversion therapy’ ban for LGBTQ+ minors.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court won’t review Washington state ban on conversion therapy of minors.”

“Special counsel goes directly to Supreme Court to resolve whether Trump has immunity from prosecution”: Hannah Rabinowitz of CNN has this report.

You can access the petition for writ of certiorari before judgment at this link.

“Fake Cases, Fake Facts, Real Implications”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Supreme Court Turns Away LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban Case”: Emily Birnbaum of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access).

In the December 18, 2023 issue of The New Yorker: Sarah Stillman has A Reporter at Large article headlined “Sentenced to Life for an Accident Miles Away; A draconian legal doctrine called felony murder has put thousands of Americans — disproportionately young and Black — in prison.”

And Amy Davidson Sorkin has a Books essay titled “The Troubled History of the Espionage Act; The law, passed in a frenzy after the First World War, is a disaster; Why is it still on the books?“

“57. Another Bad Day for the Purcell “Principle”; A new decision by the full Fifth Circuit helps to illustrate some of the many problems with how the Supreme Court says lower courts are supposed to handle emergency applications in election cases.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any cases but called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

In Tingley v. Ferguson, No. 22–942, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. issued dissents from the denial of certiorari.

And in Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23–411, Justice Alito issued a dissent from the denial of the motion to intervene.