“Texas tells Supreme Court its immigration law is key to handling border crisis; The high court faces a Wednesday deadline as it considers whether Texas exceeded its authority by implementing its own migrant deportation infrastructure”: Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“Biden administration proposes $38 million for judicial security after Supreme Court protests; The budget proposal comes after a flood of threats and protests against the Supreme Court, following the leak of draft decision to overturn the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade”: Bart Jansen of USA Today has this report.

“New UVA Law Program Prepares Students for Appellate and Supreme Court Practice”: Melissa Castro Wyatt of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report.

“US appeals court questions bid to block Delaware assault weapons ban”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has a report that begins, “A U.S. appeals court on Monday expressed skepticism about a bid by gun rights groups to block Delaware’s bans on assault weapons and high-capacity firearm magazines in light of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that expanded gun rights.”

“Notice of Transition in Chief Judgeship”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has posted this announcement online.

“Pa. High Court Agrees to Take Up Challenge to State Damages Cap”: Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on an order that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

“AbbVie Loses Appeal to Keep Documents in AndroGel Suit Secret; Alleged documents were subject to attorney-client privilege; Didn’t prove writ of mandamus was the only available remedy”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued under seal on February 22, 2024 but publicly released today.

“US appeals judges argue suspension of 96-year-old colleague is constitutional; Pauline Newman challenged Federal Circuit’s suspension in D.C. court; Circuit judicial council says Newman’s constitutional challenges must fail”: Blake Brittain of Reuters has this report.

Michael Shapiro of Bloomberg Law reports that “Judge Newman’s Colleagues Move to End Her Reinstatement Lawsuit; Newman was sidelined by Fed. Circuit colleagues in September; Judge’s lawsuit attacks process that led to her suspension.”

And in related news, yesterday Renee C. Quinn of the “IPWatchdog” blog had a post titled “Celebrating 40 Years with Judge Pauline Newman.”

“DAs Are Sanctioned After Improperly Conceding Death Penalty Case; DAs said they reviewed case, talked to victims’ family; Court decided they did neither, imposed nominal sanctions”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access).

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Paul Cassell has a post titled “The Third Circuit Affirms Sanctions Against the Philadelphia D.A.’s Office for Failing to Confer with Crime Victims; The Circuit concludes that the district court appropriately sanctioned the D.A.’s Office for making misleading statements about whether it had conferred with a crime victim’s family.”

On Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued two separate rulings in the case, one dealing with sanctions, and the other dealing with the merits of the case.

“Why the Supreme Court Should Clear the Way for a Pre-Election Trump Trial”: Law professor Kate Shaw has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“The NRA has a case before the Supreme Court that it absolutely should win; It’s one of two cases asking whether the government is allowed to speak freely to private companies”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“The Lies Destroying America: American democracy is losing the battle against disinformation, but all is not lost.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“In Death Penalty Cases, a Texas Court Tests the Supreme Court’s Patience; The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, one law professor said, treats Supreme Court rulings as ‘optional guideposts rather than the commands of a higher tribunal’”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“70. The Shoddy Politics of Trump v. Anderson: The Section 3 disqualification case provided the Supreme Court with a chance to engage in true constitutional statesmanship; The five justices in the majority . . . didn’t.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.