“Penn law dean starts process that could lead to sanctions on professor Amy Wax; In a noon email to the law school community, Dean Ted Ruger said he would invoke a faculty review process, which must occur before any action, major or minor, could be taken”: Susan Snyder of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“A New (Read Old) And Improved 14th Amendment? Reviewing Barnett and Bernick’s ‘The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment.'” Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“An Error in Justice Gorsuch’s Concurrence in the OSHA Vaccine Mandate Case; The Justice claimed OSHA took a past position that the agency did not actually take”: Patterico has this post at his Substack site, “The Constitutional Vanguard.”

“Federal appeals court refuses rehearing in challenge to SDUSD vaccine mandate”: Morgan Cook of The San Diego Union-Tribune has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Conservative appellate justices want Supreme Court to take up San Diego schools’ COVID rules.”

And Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Hearing in Vaccination Case; 10 Dissenters Say That Allowing Secular Exemptions but Not Religious Ones Requires Strict Scrutiny; They Maintain That Heed Is Not Being Taken of U.S. Supreme Court’s April 9 Decision.”

You can access Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring in and dissenting from that denial, at this link.

“FAA Must Explain Ruling to Pilot Who Accidentally Had Beer”: Bernie Pazanowski pf Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a redacted decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued Friday.

According to the opinion, the pilot consumed pulled pork that a restaurant prepared by cooking it in beer, even though the restaurant’s menu’s description of this item contained no mention of beer.

“Supreme Court justices aren’t ‘scorpions,’ but not happy campers either”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases but requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case.

And in Trustees of New Life in Christ Church v. Fredericksburg, No. 21-164, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

“U.S. 5th Circuit court asks Texas Supreme Court to weigh in on challenge to Texas abortion law”: Madlin Mekelburg of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Texas’s six-week abortion ban remains in effect after federal appeals court ruling.”

Lomi Kriel of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas abortion law challenge heads to state’s supreme court, likely adding more delays to case; The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision means it could take months before abortion providers’ challenge to the restrictive law returns to a federal court.”

Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court delays legal challenge to Texas abortion law.”

Tierney Sneed of CNN reports that “Federal appeals court sends abortion case to Texas Supreme Court.”

Jon Brown of Fox News reports that “Federal appeals court sends Texas abortion law case to Republican-majority state Supreme Court; The action is seen as another blow for opponents of the abortion restriction measure.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Appeals court detours Texas abortion ban case to state Supreme Court; 5th Circuit’s decision, 2-1, likely prolongs enforcement of unusual anti-abortion law.”

And Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that “Texas Six-Week Abortion Law Case Gets Routed to State Top Court.”

You can access this evening’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Should a Religious Flag Fly Over a Government Building? The Supreme Court takes up a case that could further undermine the ‘Lemon test’ that prohibits government-religion interaction.” William J. Haun has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“The Important Choice of Law Questions Lurking in Tomorrow’s Stolen-Pissarro Argument: The applicability of Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing — no, wait! I promise it’s important ….” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Judge Gilbert Merritt, fixture of Tennessee judiciary for decades, dies”: Mariah Timms of The Tennessean has this report.

“A Daughter’s Quest to Free Her Father’s Killer: Katie Kitchen wanted to live up to her progressive ideals; Her own family tragedy presented a chance.” Eren Orbey has this Annals of Justice article in the January 24, 2022 issue of The New Yorker.

“Pretext Explains (But Does Not Justify) the SCOTUS Invalidation of the OSHA Vaccine Rule”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“A lot is riding on North Carolina’s 2022 judicial elections”: Law professor Gene Nichol has this essay online at The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Fate of Nazi-looted Pissarro to be decided by US supreme court; The legal battle over the painting, in the hands of a Madrid museum, has spanned more than 15 years”: Ashifa Kassam of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“The Persistent Gender Gap at the Supreme Court Lectern: More than 40 years after Ruth Bader Ginsburg last appeared as a lawyer at the Supreme Court, relatively few women argue cases there.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“What the Supreme Court’s Vaccine Case Was Really About”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“What do we teach law students when we have no faith in the Supreme Court?” Law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Jeffrey Abramson have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“The Christian right brings a Supreme Court case it actually deserves to win; The case presents a genuinely difficult free speech dispute”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Judicial Notice (01.15.22): Sedition; A Yale Law grad gets indicted, a controversial clerk hire gets clarified, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Flexing its judicial muscle as the Supreme Court has not done in generations, the Court’s new conservative majority of six Justices on Thursday blocked the Biden Administration policy that sought to impose nationwide protection of more than 84 million workers from the deadly Covid-19 virus.” So begins Lyle Denniston’s blog post titled “Court sweeps away broadest anti-virus policy.”

“Some Brief Thoughts on Gorsuch’s Opinion in NFIB v. OSHA”: Anita Krishnakumar has this post at the “Election Law Blog.”

“Hospitals Confront the Fallout From Supreme Court Ruling on Vaccine Mandate; They could face more staff shortages, and workers and facilities could feel caught between opposing state and federal policies”: Audra D.S. Burch and Reed Abelson will have this article in Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Don’t Pack the Court. Allow the Number of Justices to Float. That would strengthen the court’s legitimacy while keeping partisan tensions in check.” Professor Scott S. Boddery and Benjamin R. Pontz have this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Some states move to protect abortion rights in face of challenge at Supreme Court; New Jersey codified the right to an abortion into state law this week”: Meredith Deliso of ABC News has this report.

“The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines; The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Here’s how Biden can fix the Supreme Court’s terrible mistake in the vax or mask case”: Law professor Aaron Tang has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Gorsuch v. the Administrative State Is Really Heating Up; Three Supreme Court conservatives have signaled that they want to go beyond barring vaccine mandates to erecting sweeping constitutional barriers against federal regulatory activity”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Appeals court could revive suits seeking tuition refunds over Covid closures; A majority of the D.C. Circuit panel seems inclined to reinstate suits against George Washington University and American University”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report on an oral argument (access the audio via this link) today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“The Even Bigger Problem With Neil Gorsuch’s Decision Not to Wear a Mask; The issue goes beyond whatever infectious particles might circulate around the bench”: Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Culture War Has Warped the Supreme Court’s Judgment; Yesterday’s decision hinges on a new and alarming embrace of the right-wing crusade against vaccination”: Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Also online at The Atlantic, law professor Kimberly Wehle has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Has Anointed Itself Czar of the Country’s COVID Rules; The conservative justices say that vaccine policy is Congress’s or the states’ job, but in practice they’re the ones calling the shots now.”

“Boris Johnson in reverse: The Supreme Court gives itself what it bans for the rest of us.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Penn law professor Amy Wax enraged people with her comments about Asians. Now, she may face sanction. But some academics who ardently despise Wax’s comments say they would rather she retains the right to say them than allow her to be fired.” Susan Snyder of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

And Christine Charnosky of Law.com has reports headlined “Debate Intensifies Over Potential Discipline for Penn Law Professor Amy Wax” and “Law Schools Often Have Little Recourse When Tenured Faculty Become PR Headaches.”

“What the Supreme Court’s OSHA Ruling Means: It weakens the legal basis for earlier efforts to protect workers from Covid, and it suggests other administrative ‘work-arounds’ will eventually fall.” Eugene Scalia has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court to Hear Case of Coach Who Lost His Job Over Postgame Prayers; A federal appeals court ruled that a school board in Washington State could require the coach to stop praying at the 50-yard line after high school football games”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to hear case of high school football coach who lost job after praying with players.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court will hear the case of football coach who led prayers on 50-yard line.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear case of high school football coach who lost job after praying on field.”

Mark A. Kellner of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear case of high school football coach who was sacked for praying on field.”

And Mark Walsh of Education Week reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Case of Coach Who Prayed After Games in Defiance of School District.”

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