On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two challenges to the Biden Administration's vaccine mandates. Fox News reported:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Friday in a high-stakes public session to decide whether the U.S. government can begin enforcing sweeping COVID-19 vaccine requirements affecting nearly 100 million workers.

Despite the final report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court not endorsing court-packing, many on the Left see it as an opportunity to bring the issue to the forefront again. Two commissioners released an op-ed in the Washington Post following the release of the report titled, "The Supreme Court isn’t well. The only hope for a cure is more justices."

Last week, the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court approved its final report to be sent to President Joe Biden. Fox News reported:

The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of approving its final report and sending it to President Biden's desk.

Many commentators in the conservative legal sphere agree—there is no middle ground when it comes to the decision the U.S. Supreme Court will make in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Carrie Severino writes for Fox News:

The current court would commit grave error in Dobbs if it replicated Casey’s gamesmanship with yet another baseless exercise in line-drawing. In other words, the only principled outcome here is for the court to overrule those two precedents, which are as unprincipled as any cases decided within living memory. 

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which has the potential to radically upend the current landscape of abortion jurisprudence. At issue in the case is whether a Mississippi law banning most abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy is constitutional. This case is different from others that have come before the Court because it directly asks the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in two challenges to Texas' newest abortion law in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas.

The law at issue, Senate Bill 8, effectively bans most abortions from taking place once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Only two months ago, the Supreme Court declined to grant an injunction to suspend the law, with Roberts siding with the liberal Justices. The law has remained in effect since.

As the liberal justices grow older and as the conservative majority decides an increased number of controversial cases, the Supreme Court is feeling more pressure from the Left. The Justice feeling it the most is Justice Stephen Breyer. Despite Justice Breyer generally championing the viewpoints of the Left, many are pressuring him to retire so the President can nominate a younger justice to replace him.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied the Biden Administration's request to block a Texas federal court's order to reinstate the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy. The Court explained:

On this day in 1937, the Senate put an end to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's court packing plan. Commentary from The Heritage Foundation explains:

Many Americans may have heard about how President Franklin Roosevelt’s proposed court-packing scheme failed in the 1930s. During Roosevelt’s first term, the Supreme Court struck down several laws enacted to address the Great Depression because they exceeded Congress’ power.

On Tuesday, the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States held its third meeting and 2nd round of hearings since being formed by President Joe Biden earlier this year. The meeting consisted of 6 panels of experts that commissioners questioned about various proposals for changes to the Court.  This one was much more partisan then the first two with progressive panelists making outrageous claims.  However, Harvard Professor Stephen Sachs summed up the commission well:

The public will see through efforts to recast court-packing as “court expansion,” jurisdiction-stripping as “jurisdiction channeling,” and so on. It will see through efforts to pursue short-term partisan payback under the guise of long-term reform. And because legitimacy is a two-way street, reforms that are not perceived by both sides as enhancing the courts’ legitimacy will never succeed in doing so.