“Ohio’s solicitor general moves on after arguing big cases involving abortion, other state policy”: Karen Kasler of The Statehouse News Bureau has this report.

“Supreme Court opens new term quietly — so far”: Mark Walsh has this article online at ABA Journal.

“Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to State Laws on Social Media; The tech industry argues that laws in Florida and Texas, prompted by conservative complaints about censorship by tech platforms, violate the First Amendment”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Cat Zakrzewski of The Washington Post report that “Landmark Texas, Florida social media cases added to Supreme Court term; The justices announced Friday which cases they will add to their calendar for the term that begins Monday.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court will decide if Texas and Florida can regulate social media to protect ‘conservative speech.’”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Takes Case on Social-Media Content Moderation; Justices to consider whether Texas and Florida laws restricting platforms from blocking some speech are constitutional.”

John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “Supreme Court takes on social media: First Amendment fight over ‘censorship’ is on the docket; Groups representing social media companies say the state laws at issue would ‘transform speech on the internet as we know it today’; Has social media been quick to squelch conservative views?”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear First Amendment challenge over state laws targeting social media censorship.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Throwback Thursday: Eighty Years of Ex Parte Republic of Peru.” Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk has this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog.”

“First-Time Advocates Dominate High Court’s Fall Schedule”: Katie Buehler of Law360 has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “Solo practitioner Howard Bashman had almost given up all hope on his goal of arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, but then the justices agreed in March to hear an admiralty law case over choice-of-law provisions in which he represents a yacht owner challenging the denial of an insurance claim.”

According to the article, “Bashman is one of 25 first-time advocates slated to argue before the high court so far this term.”

“Judicial Ethics in a Populist Age: The question is not why the Court has so many controversies, but why they generate so much more outrage than they used to.” David Lat and Zachary Baron Shemtob have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“There Is No Such Thing As a ‘Quiet’ Supreme Court Term; When conservatives have this much control over the Court’s agenda, the only question for liberals is how much they will lose, and how quickly”: Jay Willis has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Appeals court upholds Tennessee, Kentucky bans on transgender care for minors”: Brendan Pierson of Reuters has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this evening.

“In New Term, Supreme Court Set to Tackle Case on School Board Members’ Social Media Use; These are the cases educators will want to watch during the court’s new term”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report.

“US Supreme Court prepares for new term under ethics cloud”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“I teach Constitutional Law. Supreme Court oral arguments have gotten way too long.” Law professor Chad Flanders recently had this essay online at The Baltimore Sun.

“From bananas to baby socks, lawyers stick to routines before arguments”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this new installment of The AP’s “Supreme Court Notebook.”

“Appeals court lifts partial block on Idaho abortion ban; Enforcement of the law can begin as litigation winds its way through the courts”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report on an order that Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects lawsuit seeking to stop Janet Protasiewicz impeachment”: Alexander Shur of The Wisconsin State Journal has this report.

“Michigan judges ordered to honor pronouns of parties in court”: Ed White of The Associated Press has this report.

Alex Ebert of Bloomberg Law has an article headlined “Use Parties’ Preferred Pronouns in Court, Michigan Orders Judges.”

And Rox Laird of Courthouse News Service reports that “Michigan Supreme Court will require preferred personal pronouns; Under the new rule, Michigan courts must use an individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or ‘other respectful means.’”

You can access today’s order of the Supreme Court of Michigan, including the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, at this link.

“Fifth Circuit halts ‘religious-liberty training’ order the day before it was to take place; The appeals court also allowed Texas’s book-ban law to go into effect Monday with no explanation”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“5th Circuit’s Craven Ruling In Biden Social Media Case Was A ‘Clerical Error’”: Kate Riga of TPM yesterday had a report that begins, “The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals this morning abruptly withdrew Monday’s order giving red states a chance for an even bigger win in a case that has blocked much of the Biden administration from flagging misinformation on social media sites.”

You can access yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“The Supreme Court Needs to Make a Call on Trump’s Eligibility; The question of the former president’s possible disqualification needs to be resolved sooner or later; Sooner is better than later”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Rights Without Remedies Might As Well Not Exist; For decades, the government has relied on ordinary people to enforce federal civil rights laws; In Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, the Supreme Court could end the practice — and leave no one else to do the work”: Madiba K. Dennie has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“Hearing List for the Session Beginning October 2, 2023”: The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the Hearing List for its first oral argument session of the October Term, 2023.

“Supreme Court justices hold private conference on abortion pill, social media laws”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Alabama Voting Map Dispute; For the second time in recent months, the Supreme Court ruled against Alabama lawmakers and their proposed congressional district map”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court won’t let Alabama use disputed House map for 2024.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s plea to preserve a white Republican seat in Congress.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Bid to Scrap Black-Majority Congressional District; State sought to maintain white majorities in six of seven House districts by splintering Black community.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rejects Alabama voting map with only one Black majority district.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court refuses to halt special master redrawing of Alabama’s congressional map.”

And Howard Koplowitz of Alabama Media Group reports that “Steve Marshall says Alabama voters will be ‘racially gerrymandered’ after SCOTUS denies stay.”

You can access here and here today’s orders of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Clarence Thomas Should Not Get Away With It”: Columnist Jamelle Bouie has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Legislature confirms Nora Dannehy to Connecticut Supreme Court; Dannehy’s easy confirmation stands in contrast to the experience of Lamont’s first nominee, Sandra Slack Glover”: Mark Pazniokas of CT Mirror has this report.

“Former judge Richard Posner loses latest bid to dismiss wage lawsuit”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Biden’s Social-Media Censorship Harms Us All; The First Amendment protects the right to hear alternative views, not merely to express them”: Philip Hamburger will have this op-ed in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“TLB’s Petitions to Watch at the Long Conference”: Maggie Gardner has this post at the “Transnational Litigation Blog.”

“Number of Alumni Clerking at Federal Appellate Courts Breaks Record; Over 100 Graduates Working as Clerks for Fifth Year in a Row”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“Can the government unambiguously waive sovereign immunity by accident? The mysterious case of Department of Agriculture v. Kirtz.” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“Fifth Circuit to rehear Big Tech free speech case as Supreme Court eyes intervention”: Christopher Hutton of Washington Examiner has this report on an order granting panel rehearing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

“A 1997 Motel Murder Puts a Convict’s Life on the Line in the Supreme Court — Again; Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general is pushing to throw out Richard Glossip’s conviction, but other state officials say enough is enough”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Not just Clarence Thomas: Lower courts facing scrutiny over ethics, disclosures, too; Americans are now able to review financial disclosure reports for all nine justices on the Supreme Court, documents that revealed private jet flights, foreign travel and some bouquet ordered by Oprah.” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“How Democrats could fix the Founding Fathers’ Supreme Court mistake”: Columnist Ramesh Ponnuru has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“A Supreme Court case about hotel websites could blow up much of US civil rights law; The Supreme Court hears a civil rights case straight out of a right-wing fever dream”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Views from the High Court: Justice Elena Kagan on ethics, originalism, faith and the free exchange of ideas.” Margaret Fosmoe of Notre Dame Magazine has this report.

In earlier coverage, Ariane de Vogue of CNN reported that “Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan talks ethics and her relationship with the chief justice.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico reported that “Kagan hopes Supreme Court’s ideological divide on precedent isn’t permanent; The justice said it would be ‘a good thing’ for the court to adopt an ethics code.”