“First he went after the prosecutors who recommended a multiyear sentence for his friend Roger Stone. Then President Trump turned his Twitter ire to the ‘witch hunt disgrace’ of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which led to Stone’s indictment. But perhaps most surprising was Trump’s decision to target U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson — who will determine Stone’s fate when he appears in her courtroom next Thursday,” the Washington Post reports.

“It was not the first time Trump had gone after a federal judge or questioned the judiciary, but Tuesday’s attack was nevertheless vexing to current and former judges as Jackson prepares to decide whether to send the president’s friend to prison — and for how long.”

“The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the landmark separation of powers fight over access to President Trump’s financial records on March 31,” The Hill reports.

“A blockbuster ruling on the extent of presidential immunity in the face of congressional oversight and state prosecutorial power is expected by late June, just months ahead of Election Day.”

Washington Post: “The attorneys general for the last three states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the amendment must be added to the U.S. Constitution. The suit challenges a Justice Department memo earlier this month that said the national archivist, who certifies the ratification of amendments, should not do so because the congressional deadline for ratification expired in 1982.”

Associated Press: “A Wisconsin appeals court on Tuesday put on hold an order to immediately remove up to 209,000 names from the state’s voter registration rolls, handing Democrats who had fought the move a victory in the battleground state.”

The Supreme Court said that it will not take up a challenge to a New Hampshire city ordinance banning women from appearing topless in public, NBC News reports.

Boston Globe: “Used to be that the promise of earning a sterling line on a resume and connections to stars of the legal profession was enough to lure Harvard law students to federal clerkships.”

“But recently, when Harvard Law School was urging its students to apply to work for one of President Trump’s newly appointed judges, it felt the need to offer further incentives: ‘Next to Lake Tahoe and great skiing!’ the job alert read.”

“But that apparently wasn’t enough. Two days later, in mid-December, the law school again nudged its students to apply for clerkships with federal judges, noting that some judges, including two Trump appointees, had received no Harvard applications — calling them ‘wasted opportunities.’”

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told CNN that she no longer has cancer, following a flurry of recent health scares.

Said Ginsburg: “I’m cancer-free. That’s good.”

Cleveland Plain Dealer: “Together with McConnell, the president has ensured a conservative tilt for decades.”

Washington Post: “After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.”

“Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.”

“In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.”

We need no further proof that we live in interesting times than the existence of a Supreme Court Justice action figure.

Harry Reid: “Senate Republicans have hijacked our Supreme Court. They stole a seat that should have been filled by President Obama in 2016 and they rushed to confirm Brett Kavanaugh last year despite ample evidence that he lied to Congress. The result is the Supreme Court is now a ticking time bomb, set to blow up any meaningful progressive reforms for decades to come. Yet, the court has been the subject of surprisingly little discussion so far in the presidential primary.”

“The Supreme Court agreed Fri­day to con­sider Pres­i­dent Trump’s le­gal ef­forts to block con­gres­sional and crim­i­nal sub­poe­nas seek­ing ac­cess to his fi­nan­cial records, in a trio of block­buster cases that could have last­ing im­pli­cations for the pres­i­dency,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Associated Press: “The justices are poised to issue decisions in June, amid Trump’s bid for a second term. Rulings against the president could result in the quick release of personal financial information that Trump has sought strenuously to keep private. The court also will decide whether the Manhattan district attorney can obtain eight years of Trump’s tax returns as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”