“Can this firm invest in only Black women? This case will decide. The legal firepower on both sides of the Fearless Fund case reflects the disparate views on the nature of discrimination and the role of history in shaping public policy.” Julian Mark of The Washington Post has this report.

“A former Democratic Georgia congressman hopes abortion can power his state Supreme Court bid”: Jeff Amy of The Associated Press has this report.

“University drag ban arguments focus on SCOTUS nondiscrimination policy decision; In response to questions from Judge James Ho, the student group’s lawyer, from FIRE, said he was not there to ‘defend’ 2010’s Christian Legal Society v. Martinez decision”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“No More Cutesy Stories About Unlikely Supreme Court Friendships; The justices (and the reporters who cover them) love to tell fun anecdotes about unlikely friendships between ideological opponents, which are cold comfort to real people who just lost their civil rights”: G.S. Hans has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Amid Cases on Abortion and Trump, Roberts Reflects on Supreme Court’s Work; Oral arguments serve a crucial role at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said last week at Georgetown University; But they are not always what they seem”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Why an Immunity Ruling in Trump’s Favor Might Not Alter the Shape of His Trial; Prosecutors believe Donald J. Trump’s official acts in trying to overturn the election should be admissible evidence even if the Supreme Court rules they cannot be the basis of the charges”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Student group urges court to force Texas university to allow drag show”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report. According to the article, “U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, a member of the three-judge panel who asked the bulk of the questions, said he was ‘profoundly sympathetic’ to Morris’ free speech arguments.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit via this link.

“Supreme Court takes up prescription dog food, CBD products; With oral arguments completed for the current term, the justices have begun to add to next term’s docket”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Samuel Alito’s Resentment Goes Full Tilt on a Black Day for the Court; The associate justice’s logic on display at the Trump immunity hearing was beyond belief; He’s at the center of one of the darkest days in Supreme Court history”: Michael Tomasky has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Court says state health-care plans can’t exclude gender-affirming surgery”: Rachel Weiner of The Washington Post has this report.

You can access today’s 147-page, 8-to-6 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“SCOTUS Seems to Normalize Authoritarianism”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Democracy Dies at SCOTUS: Justice Alito suggests it’s better for democracy to let presidents commit crime with impunity. Cool.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“Academic Freedom Under Fire: Politicians despise it; Administrators aren’t defending it; But it made our universities great — and we’ll miss it when it’s gone.” Louis Menand has this A Critic at Large essay in the May 6, 2024 issue of The New Yorker.

“78. ‘Writing a Rule . . . for the Ages’: The real problem with Thursday’s argument in the Trump immunity case is the extent to which it reveals a Supreme Court poised to paint itself into a deeply problematic (and unnecessary) corner.” 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 granted review in four new cases.

“Judicial Notice (04.28.24): Be Careful What You Wish For; A judge’s hot-mic mishap, a new firm with $7 million in profits per partner, my contrarian take on Trump immunity, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“US Supreme Court urged to strike lawyers’ $667 mln fee in Blue Cross case”: Mike Scarcella of Reuters has this report.

“The Trumpification of the Supreme Court: The conservative justices have shown they are ready to sacrifice any law or principle to save the former president.” Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Louisiana Will Get a New City After a Yearslong Court Battle; The State Supreme Court cleared the way for a part of Baton Rouge to become the city of St. George; Critics say the white, wealthier enclave separating from the capital could have devastating consequences”: Rick Rojas of The New York Times has this report.

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Louisiana at this link.

“Lawsuits challenging US noncompete ban spotlight 89-year-old Supreme Court precedent”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“A few preliminary reactions to the oral argument in Trump v. United States”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

“How Justice Amy Coney Barrett drove the Supreme Court’s debate on abortion and Trump immunity”: John Fritze of CNN has this report.

“Trump immunity fight turns Supreme Court textualists topsy-turvy; ‘It sure ain’t originalism,’ one critic said”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency — and Donald Trump; In arguments about Presidential immunity, the conservative Justices, who avoided mentioning Trump, made clear that they are less concerned with holding him accountable than with shielding former Presidents from retribution”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction; Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing was memorable for its discussion of coups, assassinations and internments — but very little about the former president’s conduct”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

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

“Harriet Miers’s Nomination Collapses; Revisiting a harrowing 24 days in October 2005”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“The Republican Justices Do Not Want to Talk About Donald Trump’s Coup Attempt; Trump v. United States is the last, best chance to hold the ex-president accountable for trying to steal the last election before the next one takes place; The Republican justices understand that their job is to talk about anything else”: Jay Willis has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“These law schools dominated the federal clerk hiring market in 2023”: Karen Sloan of Reuters has a report that begins, “The University of Chicago Law School is back at No. 1 on the list of law schools that sent the highest percentage of graduates into federal clerkships, according to new data from the American Bar Association.”

“Hunter Heck ’24 on the ‘Appeal’ of Law School; Lile Moot Court Finalist First Advocated for Peers as Texas Tech Student Body President”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“The Gaping Hole in Supreme Court Rules for Tracking Links Between Litigants and Influence Groups: Parties appearing before the Supreme Court can fund the groups that file briefs supporting their arguments — and almost never have to disclose it.” Shawn Musgrave of The Intercept recently had this report.

“Trump’s immunity arguments and the experiences of the justices who might support it”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“John Roberts isn’t happy with previous ruling against Trump — what happens now?” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“A SCOTUS Firehose in Trump v United States”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“A Couple of Thoughts about the Comstock Act”: James M. Beck has this post at his “Drug & Device Law” blog.