“If the Supreme Court lets other states copy Texas’s abortion law, it’ll be chaos; The court is accelerating our country’s polarization”: Law professor Jon D. Michaels has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Spotlighting guideline circuit split, two Justices express ‘hope’ US Commission will be back ‘in near future'”: Douglas A. Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog.

“Why Doesn’t the Supreme Court Want Workers to Be As Safe From Covid as They Are? The court’s conservative justices are opposed to vaccine ‘mandates’ not because they’re anti-vax but because they’re anti-labor.” Elie Mystal has this essay online at The Nation.

“Most released due to McGirt have been charged either federally or tribally, Tulsa World analysis finds”: Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has this report.

“Supreme Court lets stand decision that McGirt not retroactive”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.

And Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has an article headlined “Supreme Court: McGirt not retroactive; Oklahoma’s appeals still on the table.”

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in three cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

And in Guerrant v. United States, No. 21-5099, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined, respecting the denial of certiorari.

“Andre Mathis — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Boeing Investors Get 737 Max Crash Litigation Revived on Appeal”: Mike Leonard of Bloomberg Law has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued Friday.

“We hold that the district court erred in sealing and ordering redaction of voluminous documents without a proper legal basis.” So ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday in the case captioned June Med. Servs. v. Phillips.

“U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling a setback for pre-trial bail bond reform in Dallas County”: Bret Jaspers of KERA News of Dallas has this report on a ruling that a divided en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued Friday.

“Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete; There is no evidence so far that vaccines are reducing infections from the fast-spreading variant”: Luc Montagnier and Jed Rubenfeld have this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Answering Schumer on the Filibuster: Democrats should have taken our advice not to break the 60-vote rule for judicial nominees in 2013.” This editorial will appear in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The Native American Victims of McGirt: ‘There is no protection for me—or anyone like me,’ one woman says.” This editorial will appear in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Sloppy Arguments Over COVID Mandates at SCOTUS: The caliber of questioning by the justices was not up to the usual standards, but the justices seemed to understand the two rules at issue present different questions.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Judicial Notice (01.08.22): Wax On, Wax Off; A controversial professor mouths off (again), Biglaw behemoths battle in court, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Justice Roberts minimizes U.S. Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis”: Hassan Kanu has this essay online at Reuters.

“Where was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mask?” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court’s conservative majority may be flexing its muscles”: Jeffrey Toobin has this essay online at CNN.

“Vaccine Mandates Have a Bad Day at the Supreme Court: The tenor of the conservative Justices’ questions suggested that the OSHA mandate, which would apply to about eighty million people, has little chance of going into effect in its present form.” Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“A newly filed lawsuit is trying to upend baseball’s century-old status quo”: Chelsea Janes of The Washington Post has an article that begins, “About 99 years and seven months ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and his colleagues issued a ruling that would shape professional baseball in the United States for the next century.”

“No Laws, Just Vibes”: You can access last night’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Kate Shaw, Leah Litman, and Melissa Murray, via this link.

“Three Rationales for Vaccine Mandates”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Meadows urges Supreme Court to take up Trump’s case that aims to keep presidential records secret”: Katelyn Polantz of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court ruling on mandates may depend on how the justices value vaccines”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“During arguments over COVID-19 policy, two absent lawyers and more masks on the bench”: Mark Walsh has this “A View from the Courtroom” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“COVID Is an Emergency. To SCOTUS’s Conservatives, It’s Also an Opportunity. Where the liberal justices see sickness and death, the conservatives see a chance to crush government.” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court appears ready to slash Biden’s vaccine mandate for workers; The Court’s Republican majority seems very concerned with reining in Biden’s power to fight a deadly pandemic.”

“The Conservative Justices Are Ready to Bring Government to a Grinding Halt; The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented crisis that only bold, innovative action can address; For John Roberts and company, that’s a problem”: Hannah Mullen has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“The Vaccine Mandate ‘Work-Around’ May Run Aground; Chief Justice Roberts asks a telling question on the OSHA mandate”: This editorial will appear in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Appears Skeptical of Biden’s Virus Plan; The court seemed more likely to sustain a separate requirement that health care workers at facilities that receive federal money be vaccinated”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court seems skeptical of Biden’s vaccine rules for businesses, more receptive to policy for health-care workers.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court casts doubt on Biden’s vaccine rule for the workplace.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Shows Skepticism Over Biden’s Covid-19 Vaccinate-or-Test Mandate; Justices consider whether federal government is overstepping its authority with mandates for healthcare workers and employees of large companies.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court signals skepticism of Biden’s workplace COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing mandate.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court justices challenge Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on businesses.”

Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “Supreme Court skeptical of Biden’s workplace vaccine rule.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court conservatives lean against Biden business vaccine policy.”

Greg Stohr, Robert Wilkens-Iafolla, and Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Justices Cast Doubt on Biden Workplace Vaccine Rule.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court conservatives skeptical of Biden vaccine and mask requirements; Several conservative justices suggested they didn’t think the government had the authority to impose such sweeping requirements covering millions of employees.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court appears poised to block Biden’s vaccine and testing rules for businesses.”

Josh Gerstein and Eleanor Mueller of Politico report that “Biden’s federal vaccine mandate for workplace in trouble at Supreme Court; The pair of requirements, which would affect tens of millions of workers, have been in legal limbo since agencies published them last year.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Conservative justices seem skeptical of Biden vaccine mandates.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court weighs COVID mandates as virus surges; The court’s own COVID-19 rules stopped two attorneys from arguing in person.”

Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Key to Biden’s pandemic response on thin ice at Supreme Court; The justices appear unconvinced that the government can force large businesses to mandate vaccines or tests for employees.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court’s conservatives cast cloud over vaccine-or-test mandate for businesses.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Nat. Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dept. of Labor, No. 21A244.

And the Court has also posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in Biden v. Missouri, No. 21A240.

“Grappling with the Fourteenth Amendment: A Reply to Our Critics.” Randy E. Barnett and Evan Bernick have this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Texas abortion law likely to head to state supreme court, could delay decision by months; Lawyers for abortion providers argue the case should go to federal district court rather than the Texas Supreme Court, which could take months to issue a ruling”: Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune has this report.

And Avalon Zoppo of The National Law Journal has a report headlined “In Setback for Abortion Clinics, 5th Circuit Hints It Will Punt SB8 Case; The panel seemed poised to certify a question regarding enforcement of the abortion law; Judges Edith Jones and Stuart Kyle Duncan appeared to support Texas’ request, while Judge Stephen Higginson opposed it.”

“Dobbs and the Holdings of Roe and Casey”: Law professor Eric R. Claeys has posted this article at SSRN.

“Louisiana Top Court Asked for Guidance in Remington Rifle Suit”: Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Texas Abortion Ban’s Next Stop Hotly Debated by Appeals Court”: Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court grapples over next steps in Texas abortion law case.”

“The potential detour for the lawsuit challenging the Texas abortion law and what it means”: Madlin Mekelburg of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

BeLynn Hollers of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Limited challenge to Texas abortion law scheduled for 5th Circuit arguments Friday; It’s still undecided whether the case will remain in federal court or go to the Texas Supreme Court.”

And Tierney Sneed of CNN reports that “Appeals court holds hearing to debate next steps in Texas six-week abortion ban case.”

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