“A Fairly Cordial Encounter for the President and ‘Barely Invited’ Justices; Members of the Supreme Court attended Trump’s annual speech, days after ruling against the legality of his tariffs; The president was restrained and tempered his criticism”: Ann E. Marimow and Erica L. Green of The New York Times have this report.

“From SOTU to SCOTUS; The Chief Justice granted my motion”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Trump Softens Criticism of Supreme Court Over Tariff Ruling”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Class Action Workaround Undermines Universal Injunction Decision”: Law professor Brian Fitzpatrick has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“Are Trump’s ‘Fallback’ Tariffs Legal? After his loss at the Supreme Court, President Trump turned to other statutes to recreate his tariffs. Will they fare any better in court?” Peter E. Harrell has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“Justice Samuel Alito Won’t Hang Up His Robes Anytime Soon”: David Lat has this new installment of his “Exclusive Jurisdiction” column online at Bloomberg Law.

Judge Scirica to be the first recipient of the Honorable Anthony J. Scirica Judicial Service Award: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued this news release.

In related news, the inaugural winner of the FIFA Judicial Service Award has yet to be determined.

“John Roberts Is Losing Patience With Trump”: Linda Greenhouse has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Hegseth revives push to punish Sen. Mark Kelly; The Defense secretary appealed a ruling this month in favor of the former Navy captain”: Leo Shane III, Connor O’Brien, and Kyle Cheney of Politico have this report.

“Fresh Off a Supreme Court Loss, Trump Could Face New Challenges on Tariffs; Critics are questioning the legality of the provision President Trump has used to replace his previous slate of tariffs, raising the prospect of yet another legal battle”: Ana Swanson and Tony Romm of The New York Times have this report.

David J. Lynch of The Washington Post reports that “Trump’s newest tariffs could face legal challenge, though time is short; The question is whether the U.S. financial situation meets conditions set out in a 1974 law.”

And in commentary, online at The Boston Globe, law professor Ilya Somin has an essay titled “Trump’s new tariffs are another dangerous presidential power grab; Trump has tried to reconstitute his tariff power by reinstating most of his sweeping tariffs using a 1974 law; If allowed to stand, this would undermine the constitutional system almost as much as the earlier tariffs did.”

“Awkward? What to expect from Trump-Supreme Court beef at State of the Union. Trump said the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him on tariffs were ‘barely invited,’ though doesn’t control the invite list. He also said he ‘couldn’t care less if they come.’” Maureen Groppe of USA Today has this report.

“Supreme Court bars suits against the Postal Service, even for intentional failure to deliver mail”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court hands USPS a win, blocks lawsuits for intentional delivery issues; The high court ruled against a landlord who said her mail wasn’t delivered because she’s Black.”

John Fritze and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court fails to deliver for Texas woman who claims Postal Service withheld mail because she is Black.”

And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court lets postal workers off the hook for undelivered mail; A Texas landlord put the Postal Service’s legal immunity to the test at the high court after mail carriers intentionally withheld her deliveries.”

And in commentary, online at Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “Supreme Court Says You Can’t File Tort Suits Against Postal Carriers Who Won’t Deliver Mail to Black People; According to Clarence Thomas, mail that your mail carrier steals from you is really just ‘lost,’ if you think about it.”

You can access today’s 5-to-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Supreme Court Sides With Couple in Case Involving Baby Food Sold at Whole Foods; The court agreed to revive a lawsuit by a Texas couple who claimed that tainted baby food purchased at Whole Foods had sickened their young son”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

And Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “High court puts Whole Foods back in hot seat over baby food debacle; A jurisdiction dispute put the highly contested fight to determine the cause of autism before the Supreme Court.”

You can access today’s decision of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“‘A disgrace’? Kavanaugh has a duty to defend the Supreme Court. The justice can stand up for his colleagues Trump called ‘fools and lapdogs.’” Law professor Richard J. Lazarus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Former Trump attorney seeks to sideline justices from case involving fake electors”: Molly Beck of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a report that begins, “President Donald Trump’s former campaign attorney is arguing how two state Supreme Court justices responded to a lawsuit filed by Trump to overturn Wisconsin’s presidential election should bar the justices from overseeing a case involving his role in an effort to overturn the election.”

“Two liberal challengers test Georgia’s entrenched Supreme Court; Former Democratic attorney general nominee joins broader effort to oust GOP-appointed justices on Georgia’s top court”: Greg Bluestein of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

“Trump’s Tariff Loss Is the Worst Judicial Defeat in Presidential History; From Jefferson to Lincoln, Nixon to Bush, no president’s agenda has been so thoroughly undercut by the Supreme Court”: Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at City Journal.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Blackman has a post titled “Justice Gorsuch’s Campy Concurrence; Justice Gorsuch takes us on visit of Camp Barrett, Camp Kagan, Camp Kavanaugh, and Camp Thomas.”

“Lawyers Can Charge Big Rates Even If Firm Is Small, Court Rules”: Roy Strom of Bloomberg Law has this report on a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that “US appeals court says law firm’s size doesn’t limit legal fees.”

“Again, Trump Completely Misreads the Law”: Lev Menand and Joel Michaels have this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Taking Stock of Justice Souter”: Law professor G. Edward White has posted this article online at SSRN.

“Tariffs were illegal. Now Trump wants to delay refunds. The government said small businesses would be made whole. It’s time to pay up.” Neal Katyal has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Putting Trump’s Backlash Against The Tariff Ruling In Context”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” along with an earlier post titled “Annotating President Trump’s Press Conference About The Tariffs Ruling.”

“Tenth Circuit’s Tymkovich to Step Back as Trump Gains New Seat”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Does Section 230 Immunize Twitter’s Knowing Possession of Child Sex Abuse Materials? A recently filed cert petition presents this important issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Paul Cassell has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

You can view the cert. petition at this link.

“Supreme Court Finally Checks Trump; The president’s ire is fueling his flailing response”: Dan Rather has this post at his “Steady” Substack site.

“Learning Resources and Youngstown: ‘is this case a big deal?’” William Baude has this post at the “Divided Argument” Substack site.

“The Tariff Wears Two Hats: What SCOTUS Doesn’t Understand.” John C. Eastman has this post at the American Mind site of the Claremont Institute.

“Trump Faces Tough Legal Landscape to Oppose Tariff Refunds”: Zoe Tillman of Bloomberg News has this report.

“American Bar Association puts Trump on blast for SCOTUS attacks; After calling the justices fools for ruling against him last week, President Trump said Monday that he’d no longer be capitalizing ‘Supreme Court’ as a reflection of its disrespect for his authority”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

And at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine, Margaret Hartmann has a post titled “Trump Gets Back at ‘supreme court’ by Revoking Capital Letters.”

“Longtime Fifth Circuit Bulwark Dennis Stops Hearing Cases”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Tom Goldstein Won $51 Million Against Billionaire Heads-Up Legend Andy Beal”: Connor Richards of PokerNews has this report.

“What the Roberts Court Is Actually Trying to Accomplish: It’s not about Trump.” Sarah Isgur has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Clarence Thomas Has Lost the Plot; The associate justice’s dissent in the tariffs case deserves some extra attention, because it his hopelessly uncoupled from law, history, and the Constitution”: Matt Ford has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Republican Judges Are Using Imaginary Voter Fraud to Empower Real Voter Suppression; Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones says that mail-in balloting is a ‘rich field for fraud’ in Texas; The numbers tell a different story”: Madiba K. Dennie has this essay online at Balls and Strikes.

“Tonight Show: At the State of the Union address, will Trump or John Roberts blink first?” Reynolds Holding has this post at his “Better Judgment” Substack site.