“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.

“The Vaccine-Mandate Case Is About So Much More Than Vaccine Mandates; This could be the start of a major dismantling of the federal government”: Law professor Kimberly Wehle has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Vaccine mandate regulations are under the Supreme Court’s microscope”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Judge allows feds to seize Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s prison canteen account”: Joe Dwinell of The Boston Herald has this report.

And Omar Abdel-Baqui of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Boston Marathon Bomber’s Prison Funds Are Seized; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev spent thousands while not paying restitution owed to victims; a judge rules prosecutors can claim those funds.”

“No One Is Coming to Save Us From the ‘Dagger at the Throat of America'”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen has this essay online at The New York Times.

“In Jones Day v. Orrick, 9th Circuit will break ground on arbitration subpoenas”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Kirkland’s Paul Clement messes with Texas judge in antitrust appeal”: Mike Scarcella of Reuters has this report.

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

“The Supreme Court could hand down another major attack on Roe v. Wade any day now; Brnovich v. Isaacson could trigger a flood of decisions reinstating long-dead anti-abortion laws”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“F.D.R.’s Court-Packing Plan Had Two Parts. We Need to Bring Back the Second.” Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Four in 10 federal courthouses rank poorly for security: Congressional watchdog.” Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“DUP’s Donaldson hails victory for ‘freedom of expression’ after European Court declares Ashers ‘gay cake’ case inadmissible; Gareth Lee’s legal team to consider fresh domestic case”: Ralph Hewitt of The Belfast Telegraph has this report.

Kaya Burgess of The Times of London reports that “‘Gay cake’ activist loses legal fight against Ashers bakery.”

Haroon Siddique of The Guardian (UK) has a report headlined “‘Gay cake’ row: man loses seven-year battle against Belfast bakery; ECHR says Gareth Lee’s case against bakery that refused to make cake with ‘support gay marriage’ message is inadmissible.”

Chiara Giordano of The Independent (UK) reports that “‘Gay cake’ legal challenge thrown out by European Court of Human Rights; Gareth Lee failed to ‘exhaust domestic remedies’ in seven-year legal case against Christian bakers who refused to make cake with pro-gay marriage slogan, court rules.”

And Molly Quell of Courthouse News Service reports that “Rights court rejects gay discrimination claim in British cake case; The case from the United Kingdom follows a similar recipe to one in the United States where a Colorado baker said freedom of religion protected him from designing a gay couple’s wedding cake.”

You can access today’s ruling of the European Court of Human Rights at this link.

“Backbone of Biden’s pandemic response faces high court dissection; The fate of a federal plan to bring American workers through the pandemic has met challenges from a swath of red states and industry groups opposed to vaccine mandates”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Supreme Court is set to review Biden’s vaccine rules for businesses, health-care workers”: Ann E. Marimow and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post have this report.

“A Supreme Court Ruling Against Vaccine Mandates Could Be Disastrous for Public Health”: Law professor Wendy Parmet has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“The Vaccine Mandate Case May Mark the End of the ‘Work-Around’ Era; It gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to revive the separation of powers”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Stakes on Vaccine Mandates: The Court’s ruling will echo far beyond the current pandemic.” This editorial will appear in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“California’s war on breakfast wages on, and Iowa farmers need justices to act; The Supreme Court should review a challenge to the state’s law dictating how bacon and eggs are produced elsewhere”: U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has this essay online at The Des Moines Register.

“The Court and the ‘vaccination wars'”: Lyle Denniston has this blog post.

“The Hidden Agenda Behind the Attack on Vaccine Mandates: Six Republican-appointed justices may use these cases to seize power from the president and Congress.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.