“Illegally jailed at the Bronx Zoo? Court to weigh Happy the elephant’s rights.” Luc Cohen of Reuters has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s History of Protecting the Powerful: Laurence Tribe discusses the leaked Alito draft, the inherent politics of the judicial branch, and how to behave on Twitter.” Isaac Chotiner has this Q&A online at The New Yorker.

“A Conversation with Chief Judge Sutton”: You can access the new episode of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast, featuring David French and Sarah Isgur, via this link.

“Judge stops enforcement of Michigan’s abortion ban if Roe overturned; Nessel won’t appeal”: Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News has this report.

“Jackson’s first Supreme Court clerks include judiciary workplace reform advocate”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Motives, codewords, wiretaps and persistence: Backstory of Charlie Adelson’s arrest.” Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics has this report.

“Supreme Court Takes Clinic Case on Challenges to Convictions”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

The involvement of UVA Law’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic in this case has proved controversial (see, e.g., here and here).

“The Antiscience Supreme Court Is Hurting the Health of Americans; Justice Alito’s leaked opinion signaling an end to Roe is the latest in a broad trend of rejecting science and expertise”: Law professor Wendy E. Parmet has this essay online at Scientific American.

“The Indian Commerce Clause: The Natelson/Ablavsky Debate.” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Hill Dems back-burner Ginni Thomas even as Supreme Court grabs national attention; Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife pushed false election subversion claims — and played a key role in anti-abortion messaging; But she’s not top of mind lately”: Nicholas Wu and Kyle Cheney of Politico have this report.

“Was it Ever Really Roberts’ Court?” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“What abortion rights advocates are planning if Roe falls; Attorneys and advocates are exploring options beyond lawsuits, including using strategies once relied on by their foes”: Alice Miranda Ollstein and Laura Barrón-López of Politico have this report.

“Dan Markel murder: Jury selection continues in Katherine Magbanua murder trial.” Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

And Julie Montanaro of WCTV reports that “Wendi Adelson’s attorney says she intends to plead the fifth, asks judge to quash defense subpoena.”

“Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: The Jackson Four; Here’s the first class of clerks to the soon-to-be Justice Jackson — and other SCOTUS clerk updates.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“The problem in this case can be boiled down to the fact that the District Court dismissed a removed case rather than remanding it back to state court when it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs lacked standing.” So ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit yesterday in a suit challenging Pensacola’s decision to remove a Confederate cenotaph (a monument standing 50 feet tall) from one of the city’s parks.

“Court rules against regents in lawsuit over messages about ‘ASU COVID parties'”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this report on an unpublished decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Friday.

“The Gap nixes Exchange Act derivative claims via forum selection — 9th Circ.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued Friday.

“Court rules COVID restrictions impeded a Bay Area man’s right to a public trial, overturns gun conviction”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

And Kevin Rector of The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. appeals court vacates gun conviction because COVID rules had closed trial to the public.”

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

“No mask mandates in Iowa schools, for now, court rules; exceptions could be made in future”: Ian Richardson of The Des Moines Register has this report on a per curiam decision that the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Why Do the Supreme Court Leak and Protests Matter? It’s part of a larger crisis of perceived legitimacy.” Patterico has this post at his “The Constitutional Vanguard” Substack site.

“Dan Markel murder trial: Jury Selection Day 2.” The Tallahassee Democrat is live-streaming on YouTube via this link today’s courtroom proceedings in the retrial of Katherine Magbanua.

“Rational Basis Scrutiny?” Sherry F. Colb has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Where, If Anywhere, Should People Protest Judicial Decisions?” Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“The People Who Promised Roe Was Safe Are Already Selling Their Next Bridge”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Rules for Ted Cruz in Campaign Finance Case; The Texas senator challenged a federal law that put a $250,000 cap on repayments of candidates’ loans to their campaigns using postelection contributions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court agrees with Cruz, strikes campaign contribution limit.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for Ted Cruz, strikes down limit on post-election gifts to winners.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Sen. Ted Cruz, Striking Down Campaign-Finance Regulation; Conservative 6-3 majority finds that limit on repaying campaign loans weeks after Election Day infringes on free speech.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in fight over federal campaign loan repayment limits.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in FEC case.”

“Supreme Court splits in deportation case, says judiciary has limited role; Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for most of the court’s conservatives, but Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the liberals in dissent”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court limits the ability of illegal immigrants to appeal deportation decisions.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court limits review of factual disputes in immigration cases.”

And Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Supreme Court Sides with US in Immigration Dispute Over Review.”

“Alito says overturning Roe gives women a voice on abortion. In the South, it’s not that simple. If Roe v. Wade falls, states will determine abortion access. Civil rights advocates say places with the tightest restrictions are also some of the toughest places to vote.” Bracey Harris of NBC News has this report.

“For Justice Thomas, the Roberts court is more feud than family”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Judge, attorneys in Katherine Magbanua Retrial sift through 100 potential jurors”: Jada Williams of WTXL has this report.

And Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics has a post titled “Markel Trial Day 1: Civics lessons, sealed motions, and evolving witness lists.”

The Tallahassee Democrat has posted on YouTube the video of the first day of proceedings titled “Dan Markel murder: The jury selection and trial of Katherine Magbanua.”

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., ERA-NC Alliance seeks leave to file amicus brief addressing the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion: You can access online both the organization’s letter motion for an extension of time and the organization’s motion for leave to file amicus brief.

I’m just a bit surprised that two weeks have gone by since the leak and no one else has sought to file anything about it in the Dobbs case itself. Perhaps they’re content to communicate with the Court via the “How Appealing” blog.

“Samuel Alito’s ‘Amelia Bedelia’ Reading of the Constitution; What the Supreme Court Justice’s leaked draft opinion on abortion reveals about originalism”: Fabio Bertoni recently had this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.

“States pursue extreme restrictions in crafting post-Roe abortion law”: Amy B Wang and Caroline Kitchener of The Washington Post have this report.

“The Post-Roe Battleground for Abortion Pills Will Be Your Mailbox; If regulation of abortion access falls to the states, it will unleash legal havoc over pregnancy-ending medications that are shipped across state lines”: Maryn McKenna of Wired has this report.

Aria Bendix of NBC News reports that “Getting abortion pills by mail is already more complicated than it might seem; Most states have at least one restriction on medication abortion beyond FDA rules; Overturning Roe v. Wade would further limit access.”

Christina Cauterucci of Slate has a report headlined “There’s Already a Revolution in Abortions Happening — and the Supreme Court Can’t Touch It.”

Laurel Wamsley of NPR as a report headlined “How medication abortion works and what the end of Roe v. Wade could mean for it.”

Amy Littlefield of The Nation has a report headlined “The Fight for Abortion After Roe Falls; It will be a battle with 50 different fronts.”

The Boston Globe has published an editorial titled “Make abortion pills available over the counter: In a post-Roe world, American women will need easier access to ‘medication abortion.’”

And online at Bloomberg Opinion, Lisa Jarvis has an essay titled “If States Can Ban Abortion, How About Abortion Pills? In a Q&A, law professor Greer Donley makes the case for broad access to medication abortion, no matter the fate of Roe v. Wade.”

“Dividing on Ideological Lines and Breaking Little New Ground in FEC v. Cruz, Supreme Court Strikes Down Another Part of McCain-Feingold law”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“Pro Bono Is Broken: Law firms love to tout the work they do for people who could not otherwise afford it; But pro bono work is rarely as impactful as proponents claim.” Steve Kennedy has this post at Balls and Strikes.