“The Supreme Court should be reformed. But court packing is a terrible idea.” The Washington Post has published this editorial.

“The Supreme Court Is Playing Constitutional Calvinball; If liberals try to apply the logic of the Texas abortion ruling to their own favored causes, they might be in for a rude surprise”: Adam Serwer has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The one good thing that could come from Gavin Newsom trolling the Supreme Court: There are worse things than a hypocritical Court.”

“Biden gets three seats to fill on 4th, 6th Circuits as judges take senior status”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Judge’s stock portfolio didn’t taint class rulings: tuna plaintiffs to 9th Circuit.” Alison Frankel of Reuters has this report.

“What Brett Kavanaugh Didn’t Mention when He Talked About Reversing Roe: Yes, the court has ignored precedent before, but never to take away a constitutional right.” Law professor Kimberly Wehle has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Could Ocean City’s topless ordinance head to the Supreme Court? The latest legal battle.” Emily Lytle of The Salisbury (Md.) Daily Times has this report.

“Conservatives may control the Supreme Court until the 2050s; Overturning Roe v. Wade may just be the beginning, our research suggests”: Professors Charles Cameron and Jonathan P. Kastellec have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Clarence Thomas: Be Careful What You Wish For.” Sherry F. Colb has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“With Roe at Risk, Justices Explore a New Way to Question Precedents; A new study traces a trend at the Supreme Court: looking to what the lawyers had argued in assessing whether to follow a precedent”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court Allows Vaccine Mandate for New York Health Care Workers; Doctors and nurses challenged a state coronavirus vaccine requirement that had medical but not religious exemptions, saying it violated their right to free exercise of their faiths”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court won’t stop vaccine mandate for New York health care workers.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the dissent therefrom, at this link.

“Last Week’s Texas Ruling Will Prove to Be a Wipeout for Abortion Rights”: Dennis Aftergut and law professor Laurence H. Tribe have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Judge Alison Nathan — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”

“Court Reform Is Dead! Long Live Court Reform! The Commission on the Supreme Court’s findings may end up helping to set reform in motion, rather than stopping it in its tracks.” Law professors Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn have this essay online at The Atlantic.

“We served on the Supreme Court commission. Term limits and court-packing are bad ideas.” Thomas B. Griffith and David F. Levi have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Supreme Court Likes Precedent — When It Backs Conservatives; The decision to leave Texas’ anti-abortion law in effect underscores how the new conservative majority is exercising power”: Law professor Aziz Huq has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Supreme Court sets date with Oklahoma to respond to 40-plus McGirt appeals”: Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World has this report.

“Supreme Court may decide soon whether to reconsider McGirt”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.

“The Supreme Court isn’t well. The only hope for a cure is more justices.” Former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner and law professor Laurence H. Tribe have this essay online at The Washington Post.

And online at Time magazine, law professor Kermit Roosevelt III has an essay titled “I Spent 7 Months Studying Supreme Court Reform. We Need to Pack the Court Now.”

“The nation needed a strong defense of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court did this instead.” The Washington Post has published this editorial.

“Don’t be fooled: The Supreme Court’s Texas abortion decision is a big defeat for Roe v. Wade; Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion is sneaky, underhanded, and a big blow to abortion rights.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“Texas abortion providers ‘won’ in court Friday. The future is bleaker than ever. The decision let a challenge to the law proceed but limited whom the providers can sue.” Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“What should happen if abortion returns to the states? An expert explains; If the U.S. Supreme Court tosses Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, any bans in effect before the decision should be struck down, a Montgomery County attorney suggests.” John L. Micek has this essay online at the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

“In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons”: Liam Dillon of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Texas Abortion Decision Is a Disaster for Constitutional Rights; In the guise of a compromise decision, five justices gave states a road map to nullify fundamental liberties”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Also online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “John Roberts Has Lost Control; The real takeaway from the court’s rulings on the Texas abortion cases is that the chief justice has lost his influence.”

And Jeremy Stahl has a jurisprudence essay titled “If John Roberts Really Wants to Save the Court, He Should Retire.”

“The Supreme Court Can’t Hide Its Contempt for Abortion Rights Any Longer; By allowing a husk of a legal challenge to Texas SB8 to go forward, the conservative justices send the strongest signal yet that Roe v. Wade‘s days are numbered”: Jay Willis has this post at Balls and Strikes.

“The Thomas court: After 30 years of waiting, Justice Clarence Thomas has seniority and a court shaped in his likeness.” Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Reflections of a Supreme Court Commissioner”: Law professor William Baude has posted this essay at SSRN.

“Supreme Court conservatives may have their chance to end affirmative action at universities”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court Allows Challenge to Texas Abortion Law but Leaves It in Effect; The law, which bans most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, was drafted to evade review in federal court and has been in effect since September”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report. And J. David Goodman and Ruth Graham of The New York Times report that “Small Court Victories Change Nothing for Women Seeking Abortions in Texas; A Texas statute that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy was seemingly undercut by two court rulings, but the reality on the ground has not changed.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says Texas abortion providers may proceed with challenge of six-week ban, leaves law in effect for now.” And Hannah Knowles and María Luisa Paúl of The Washington Post have an article headlined “Abortion bans and sanctuary plans: States are preparing for a possible future without Roe v Wade.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court leaves Texas abortion law in effect, allows only a narrow challenge to it.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rules Abortion Clinics Can Challenge Texas Law; State law remains in effect for now; Texas has banned procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court continues fight against Texas six-week abortion ban but leaves law in place.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court limits early challenges to Texas abortion ban law; Roberts says ruling punts on court’s constitutional powers.” And Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times reports that “Biden blasts Supreme Court on Texas abortion law, urges Congress to codify Roe v. Wade.”

Madlin Mekelburg of The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Supreme Court allows clinics to challenge Texas’ abortion law, lets Senate Bill 8 stand.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t stop Texas abortion ban, but lets clinics sue.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court leaves Texas abortion curbs intact but allows suit.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court ‘Green-Lit’ Texas Abortion Ban, Clinic Lawyers Say.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court says challenge to Texas’ ban on abortion can proceed, allows law to remain in effect for now; The court didn’t rule on the merits of the law, but rather on whether the abortion providers’ lawsuit can move forward.” And Rebecca Shabad of NBC News reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law; Roberts joined the high court’s three liberal justices in discussing the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.”

Ariane de Vogue and Tierney Sneed of CNN report that “Supreme Court lets Texas abortion law continue but says providers can sue.” In addition, de Vogue reports that “Abortion rights supporters see little to cheer in new Supreme Court opinion.”

Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court lets challenge to Texas abortion law proceed, allows law to remain in effect; Ruling comes as Supreme Court considers major Mississippi abortion case, too.”

Reese Oxner of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court lets enforcement of Texas abortion law continue but allows legal challenges to proceed; The court allowed the suit to continue on an 8-1 decision; Abortion providers will resume seeking to block the law as it progresses through lower court proceedings.” James Barragán and Cassandra Pollock of The Texas Tribune have an article headlined “‘Every constitutional right is now at risk’: Legal experts warn Supreme Court action on Texas abortion law could lead to copycats; Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority was straying from the court’s precedent to step in when state laws chill the exercise of constitutional rights while allowing other states to follow suit.” And Karen Brooks Harper of The Texas Tribune has an article headlined “‘This is a dark day’: For Texas abortion providers, U.S. Supreme Court ruling feels apocalyptic; Even though a legal fight continues, providers warn that abortion clinics could eventually have to shut down since enforcement of the law can continue.”

Josh Gerstein and Alice Miranda Ollstein report that “SCOTUS allows clinics’ challenge to Texas abortion ban to proceed; The court’s ruling allows for some cases brought by opponents of the law to proceed but closed major avenues for legal challenges, including one sought by the Biden administration.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court allows abortion providers to sue over Texas law.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Revived A Constitutional Challenge To Texas’s Six-Week Abortion Ban; The justices declined to let the Justice Department go ahead with its suit, however.”

Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Abortion providers get Supreme Court backing to fight Texas ban; Without tacking the merits of the law banning abortions upon the detection of a fetal heartbeat, the high court looked only at what state actors are proper defendants to the litigation.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court refuses to block Texas abortion law as legal fights move forward.”

In commentary, The Los Angeles Times has published an editorial titled “The Supreme Court’s ruling on a Texas abortion law won’t restore access to abortion anytime soon.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an essay titled “Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law puts all of our constitutional rights in jeopardy.”

And The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “The Supreme Court’s Abortion Standing: The merits of the Texas law weren’t at issue, and the majority is right to block most pre-enforcement federal lawsuits.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463, at this link.

Programming note: At 10 a.m. eastern time on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more opinions in argued cases. You can access the opinion or opinions via this link just as soon as the Court posts them online. I will be traveling for much of Friday, and thus additional posts will not appear here until late Friday afternoon at the earliest.

“State judge declares Texas abortion law unconstitutional — but does not stop it from being enforced; The fate of the statute remains uncertain; An appeal to the ruling is already underway, and an opinion on the law from the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending”: Reese Oxner and Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune have this report on a ruling that the District Court for the 98th Judicial District in Travis County, Texas issued today.

“Court Packing Is Discreditable as Ever; Judicial independence is too important to sacrifice for a majority’s temporary political advantage”: Professor Keith E. Whittington will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Trump White House records can be released in Jan. 6 probe pending Supreme Court review, appeals court rules; Former president seeks to keep White House papers from congressional committee investigating Capitol riot in first legal case testing whether a sitting president can waive a predecessor’s claim of executive privilege”: Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Shield Material From Jan. 6 Inquiry; A three-judge panel held that Congress’s oversight powers, backed by President Biden’s decision not to invoke executive privilege over the material, outweighed Mr. Trump’s residual secrecy powers.”

Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Rejects Trump Bid to Block Records From House Jan. 6 Panel; Former president provided no basis for stopping National Archives from giving records to committee probing pro-Trump Capitol riot, judges rule.”

And Emily Zantow of The Washington Times reports that “Court orders Trump to hand over records to Jan. 6 committee.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Architecture and the First Amendment Before the Supreme Court; Eleventh Circuit found that architectural design would not be understood as protected speech”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a petition for writ of certiorari pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Ninth Circuit Conservatives Use Muscle to Signal Supreme Court”: Andrew Wallender and Madison Alder of Bloomberg Law have this report.