“The court’s supremely obtuse response to its ethical problems”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“No Dissent on Abortion Allowed at Hogan Lovells; The global law firm fired me for defending the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision”: Robin Keller will have this op-ed in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Weighs Reviving Biden Immigration Guidelines; The justices wrestled with questions about states’ standing to sue, whether the guidelines were lawful and the limits of judicial power over immigration”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justices seem conflicted in immigration enforcement case; Texas sued over a Biden administration policy that prioritizes only some undocumented immigrants for deportation.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court divided on Biden vs. Texas clash on immigration enforcement.”

Jess Bravin and Michelle Hackman of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Considers Challenge to Biden Policy Curbing Immigration Arrests; Texas and Louisiana say government should pursue all people in U.S. illegally rather than targeting those who pose safety risks.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court grapples with challenge to Biden immigration policy on deportation.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court asked to block Mayorkas deportation policy.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with Biden’s deportation policy.”

Nate Raymond and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court mulls Biden immigration enforcement shift.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Signals Divide Over Biden’s Border Priorities; Roberts, Kavanaugh blast administration’s ‘radical’ position; Kagan says states and judges bringing policies to ‘dead halt.’”

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court grapples with whether to restore Biden immigration enforcement policy; The Biden administration is seeking to overturn a judge’s ruling that blocked a policy to stress public safety threats in immigration enforcement.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court hears Texas’ challenge to Biden immigration and deportation policies.”

Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Biden immigration enforcement stumps high court; A ruling in this case is poised to shape policy battles between states and the federal government.”

Uriel J. García of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court wrestles over Biden’s immigration enforcement policy; The Biden administration instructed immigration agents to focus on deporting undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of felonies or pose a danger to public safety; Texas filed a lawsuit saying the change was illegal.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “U.S. Supreme Court faces dilemma over enforcing the country’s immigration laws.”

And in commentary, online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A rogue Trump judge has thrown the Supreme Court in disarray; Arguments in United States v. Texas dwelled on whether to upend one of the judiciary’s longstanding procedures in order to neutralize the most reactionary judges.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcript and audio of today’s oral argument in United States v. Texas, No. 22-58.

“Delaware Supreme Court Justice James Vaughn announces retirement”: Paul Kiefer of Delaware Public Media has this report.

“Candidates announce bids to fill Pa. Supreme Court vacancy in 2023”: J.D. Prose of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

“North Dakota justices fire questions at lawyers during hearing on blocked abortion ban; Solicitor General Matthew Sagsveen told the North Dakota Supreme Court that Burleigh County District Judge Bruce Romanick ‘misconstrued the law’ in blocking the abortion ban”: Jeremy Turley of Forum News Service has this report.

And Levi Lass of Courthouse News Service reports that “North Dakota Supreme Court takes up trigger law banning abortion; The state argued the Red River Women’s Clinic — which has since moved across the border to Minnesota — has no chance of winning its case against the abortion ban.”

“Attorneys see path for Amber Heard’s appeal in defamation case; In briefs filed in Virginia’s Court of Appeals, attorneys argue that the defamation verdict against Amber Heard could have a chilling impact on women who wish to speak out about abuse”: Joan Hennessy of Courthouse News Service has this report.

“ABA asks Supreme court for client privilege protection beyond what business groups want”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“And in En Banc News . . .” Anthony B. Sanders and Matt Liles have posted this paper (forthcoming in Judicature magazine) online at SSRN about the origins of the term “en banc.”

“How the Supreme Court Is Erasing Consequential Decisions in the Lower Courts”: Law professors Lisa Tucker and Stefanie A. Lindquist have this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Should the Sentencing Commission Get Auer Deference for the Number of ‘Images’ in a Video? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagrees on whether the word ‘image’ is ambiguous.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Has anyone tracked how often district judges recuse from resentencing?” Douglas A. Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog. My earlier coverage can be accessed here.

“The Supreme Court Case That’s All About Donald Trump: Even if it’s not explicitly about him at all.” Quinta Jurecic has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Conservative Judges Are Helping the ‘Freedom of Contract’ Stage a Dramatic, Dangerous Comeback; The backlash to COVID-19 safety measures has some legal academics pining for ideas about government regulation that the Supreme Court rejected a century ago”: Lisa Needham has this post at Balls and Strikes.