“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.

“Harvey Weinstein Sex-Crimes Conviction Thrown Out by New York High Court; Court rules disgraced film producer didn’t receive a fair trial, orders new proceedings”: Erin Mulvaney and Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Jenny Jarvie, Richard Winton, and Stephen Battaglio of The Los Angeles Times report that “Harvey Weinstein rape conviction overturned by N.Y. court; California conviction stays.”

And James Queally, Richard Winton, and Jenny Jarvie of The Los Angeles Times have an article headlined “Is Harvey Weinstein’s California conviction in jeopardy after N.Y. appeals ruling?”

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — at this link.

“First bigotry, now lies: This judge pick deserves better.” The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has published this editorial.

“The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us; There will be no more self-soothing after this”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“King Donald’s Day at the Supreme Court: A political hit job? A military coup? Trump’s lawyer tests the boundaries of a truly imperial Presidency.” Susan B. Glasser has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Conservative Justices Appear Poised to Rule Ex-Presidents Have Some Level of Immunity; Such a ruling would probably send the case back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court seems poised to allow Trump Jan. 6 trial, but not immediately; Conservative and liberal justices grappled with the historic significance of a case that will also immediately impact 2024 election.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court’s conservatives lean in favor of limited immunity for Trump as an ex-president.”

Jess Bravin and Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Appears Open to Some of Donald Trump’s Immunity Claims; Justices consider whether former president can be prosecuted on charges he conspired to steal 2020 election.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court struggles with immunity for presidents over official acts.”

“On presidential immunity, a riveting national civics lesson”: Mark Walsh has this View from the Court post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The debate about Sonia Sotomayor is not about sexism. It’s more dire. Some want the Supreme Court justice to retire so that President Biden can name a replacement before . . . before what happens, exactly?” Columnist Monica Hesse has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Guess what’s not a priority in antiabortion Idaho. Women’s health.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Trump’s Immunity Claim Joins His Plans to Increase Executive Power; The former president is asking the Supreme Court to put the presidency above criminal law as he pursues a broader agenda of expanding the office’s power should he win the election”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Appears Sharply Divided in Emergency Abortion Case; The justices weighed whether a federal law aimed at protecting access to emergency medical care superseded Idaho’s near-total abortion ban”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Biden takes another avenue to push nationwide abortion.”