1/ A Maine judge delayed ruling on whether Trump’s name can appear on that state’s primary ballot, saying the Supreme Court needs to issue a decision on a similar case in Colorado first. Earlier this year, Maine’s secretary of state removed Trump from the ballot based on the Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.” The ruling sent the case back to Maine’s secretary of state, ordering her to modify, withdraw or confirm her ruling after the Supreme Court rules on the Colorado case. Oral arguments on the Colorado case are scheduled for Feb. 8. For now, Trump’s name is still on the ballot for the Maine Republican primary on March 5, which is Super Tuesday. (Associated Press / Axios / NPR / New York Times / Washington Post / CNN)

2/ A federal judge threatened to throw Trump out of court for making “disruptive” comments while E. Jean Carroll’s testified at his defamation trial. After an initial warning from Judge Lewis Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer complained a second time that Trump could still be heard “loudly saying things that are false,” including “it is a witch hunt” and “it really is a con job,” while the columnist was testifying. Kaplan warned Trump that while he “has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive […] I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial.” Trump then threw his hands up and fired back at the judge: “I would love it, I would love it.” At the time of the exchange, Carroll was testifying about how Trump’s attacks on her credibility – after she publicly accused him of a sexual assault – led to threats of violence from his supporters and that put her in fear for her safety. A jury in a separate civil case last year found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and owed her $5 million in damages. This new trial is focused on whether Trump owes Carroll additional damages for separate comments he made about her. (Associated Press / Washington Post / New York Times / NBC News / Wall Street Journal / CNN / CNBC)

3/ The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined to overturn or limit a 40-year-old precedent that gives federal agencies wide latitude to interpret unclear laws. The justices heard two cases concerning the so-called “Chevron deference,” which requires f...