“High court takes up case on virus relief funding for tribes”: Felicia Fonseca of The Associated Press has this report.

“A new, racialized assault on abortion rights is headed to the Supreme Court”: Law professor Melissa Murray has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Whitmer: Michigan Supreme Court, Legislature partly to blame for COVID-19 surge.” Paul Egan of The Detroit Free Press has this report.

“Biden’s Supreme Court commission already facing resistance as it considers wide range of ‘reforms'”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“A Salvadoran Immigrant Gets His Day at the Supreme Court; Amid chaos back home, he received ‘temporary’ U.S. status — in 2001”: This editorial will appear in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Four women who broke barriers to become the founding mothers of NPR”: In the Outlook section of today’s edition of The Washington Post, Connie Schultz has this review of Lisa Napoli’s new book, “Susan, Linda, Nina & Cokie: The Extraordinary Story of the Founding Mothers of NPR.”

And earlier this week, The New York Times posted online Zoe Greenberg’s review of the book, headlined “The Women of NPR, When NPR Was a Start-Up.”

“The Democrats’ Court-Packing Plan Doesn’t Make Any Sense; A bill to expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices seems motivated by political revenge, not sensible judicial reform”: Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“Judicial Notice: April 17, 2021; Notable legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

Lat’s round-up this week confirms what he has been hinting at recently in his Tweets and prior postings:

Two years ago, I left Above the Law (“ATL”), the legal news website I founded in 2006, to become a legal recruiter at Lateral Link. Although I’ve enjoyed my time at Lateral Link, where I’ve worked with amazing colleagues, I realized during the pandemic that writing is my true passion. So as of the end of this month, I’m leaving the world of legal recruiting and returning to full-time writing.

I still need to make a living, so my departure from recruiting will coincide with my turning on paid subscriptions here at Original Jurisdiction. If you appreciate the content I currently produce on OJ — or that I produced over the past 17 years, at ATL and Underneath Their Robes before that — please consider lending your support when the time comes.

It will be good to have him back at writing full-time (“GTHHBAWFT”).

“Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments”: Chris Kahn of Reuters has this report on the results of a recently concluded Reuters/Ipsos poll.

“Federal court in Atlanta rules against Epstein victim but is sorrowful; ‘The whole thing makes me sick,’ judge says”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

John Pacenti of The Palm Beach Post reports that “Federal appeals court deals huge blow to Jeffrey Epstein victims looking for justice.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has a report headlined “Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers cannot challenge plea agreement — U.S. appeals court.”

Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that “Epstein Victim’s Challenge to Non-Prosecution Agreement Tossed.”

Kayla Goggin of Courthouse News Service reports that “Victim’s Challenge to Epstein Plea Deal Rejected by Full 11th Circuit; A deeply divided 11th Circuit acknowledged prosecutors misled victims of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when they struck a plea deal granting him immunity from prosecution on sex-trafficking charges, but a majority held victims cannot challenge the deal now.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Paul Cassell — counsel for the mandamus petitioner — has a post titled “The Eleventh Circuit Rules Against Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Abuse Victims’ Efforts to Rescind His Secret Plea Deal; The en banc ruling calls the sordid deal a ‘national disgrace’ but concludes the courts are powerless to enforce crime victims’ rights in pre-charging situations — a disturbing ruling that I hope will be quickly overturned.” Cassell writes that he and his co-counsel will be seeking U.S. Supreme Court review on their client’s behalf.

You can access Thursday’s 185-page, 7-to-4 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“Trump Adviser Can’t Sue Over Abortion Pill Story, Panel Rules; An appeals court rejected senior Trump adviser Jason Miller’s $100 million libel lawsuit over a story about claims that he slipped a woman an abortion pill in a smoothie after impregnating her”: Kayla Goggin of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued Friday.

“Federal appeals court overturns verdict that found Sherwin-Williams, other paint companies responsible for lead poisoning”: Bruce Vielmetti has this front page article in today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“The chipping away of a woman’s right to choose; This most private personal decision, as the Supreme Court declared, must be protected”: Mary Ann Sorrentino has this essay online at The Boston Globe.

“Supreme Court rulings on traffic stops reinforce structural racism in policing; The court was well aware of what it was doing”: Dean A. Strang and Nancy Gertner of The Boston Globe have this report.

And online at Politico Magazine, Christopher Wright Durocher has an essay titled “How the Supreme Court Helped Create ‘Driving While Black’; A reckoning with police violence must include a reckoning with how the nation’s highest court enabled it.”

“Controversial MN Supreme Court ruling fuels legislative change to protect sexual assault survivors; With student support, the Minnesota Legislature is working to close the ‘intoxication loophole'”: Samantha Woodward of The Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Minnesota, has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s key Second Amendment opinion and what might come next”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“What is the perfect number of Supreme Court justices?” Columnist Alexandra Petri has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Have tech platforms captured the Supreme Court?” Law professor Jonathan M. Barnett has this essay online at The Hill.

“The 2020 election still hovers over the Supreme Court with another pending Pennsylvania case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“The Supreme Court hears a case next week that could make Citizens United even worse; The Court’s new majority could make it much easier for big spenders to influence American politics in secret”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Stylish judicial writing undermines legal system, may breach judges’ duties — new paper”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post about a new paper that I linked to in this earlier post.

“Biden should remember his own words on court-packing”: Columnist Kathleen Parker has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“If Democrats Pack the Court: After they add Justices, the GOP could strip their jurisdiction.” This editorial will appear in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Private spat between McConnell and Pelosi regarding RBG’s memorial at Capitol highlighted in new book”: Daniella Diaz, Annie Grayer, and Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Exceptions to Exceptions to the Merger Doctrine; Dismissals for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute often preclude application of the merger doctrine; But not when the defendant wants to appeal”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog.

“Can Democrats really pack the Supreme Court?” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court expansion bill faces serious blocks across political spectrum; Democratic leaders want to wait on study by Biden commission.”

And Carter Sherman of Vice News reports that “Biden Named a Lawyer With Transphobic Tweets to Supreme Court Commission; Adam White says his views have changed since 2017 and he now uses what he calls people’s ‘chosen pronouns.’“

“Supreme Court to debate immigration case as Biden wrestles with crisis at southern border”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Analyzing the Recent Sixth Circuit’s Extension of ‘Academic Freedom’ Protection to a College Teacher Who Refused to Respect Student Gender-Pronoun Preferences”: Law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein have this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Knowingly Performing Down Syndrome Abortions Is Not ‘Eugenics'”: Sherry F. Colb has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett lists Indiana home for $899,900”: Bob Goldsborough of The Chicago Tribune has this report.

“Supreme Court Commission to Scrutinize Reforms Beyond Expanding Justice Seats; President Biden’s new panel, which is set to meet on Friday, has ambitions to tackle many other proposals to overhaul the court”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

“Tandon steals Fulton‘s thunder: The most important free exercise decision since 1990.” Jim Oleske has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Alabama woman’s case becomes test of federal anti-riot law; The Justice Department dispatched its top terror prosecutor to defend a statute the Trump administration turned to in its fight against violence at racial justice protests”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“‘Bad idea’: Supreme Court justices condemn expansion efforts.” Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times has this report.

“I feel Democrats’ fury over the Supreme Court. Adding justices is the wrong fix.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.