How Appealing Weekly Roundup
Briefly

Law professors Jacob D. Charles and Matthew L. Schafer argue that the Supreme Court’s new term could challenge constitutional protections for expressing political opinions, including swearing.
In their report, Jonathan Randles and Steven Church highlight that J&J successfully keeps its talc bankruptcy in Texas, enhancing the likelihood of a settlement, while previously stalled in New Jersey.
Sarah Lipton-Lubet discusses how the anti-abortion movement is regaining a focus on victimhood narratives at the Supreme Court, reflecting on strategic shifts in advocacy.
Richard L. Hasen outlines why the Supreme Court may not play a decisive role in the 2024 election, emphasizing the need to reconsider assumptions about judicial influence.
Read at Above the Law
[
|
]