“Key Voice Is Silent in Supreme Court Case on Unions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “As Supreme Court positions harden on union case, likely deciding justice is silent.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court hears major challenge to government unions, with Gorsuch holding key vote.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Hears Case on Public-Sector Union Fees; An Illinois state worker is objecting to payroll deductions for a union collective-bargaining fee.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Public employee union fees raise ire at Supreme Court, but key justice remains silent on direction.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court justices hear challenge to mandatory union fees, appear split.”

Katherine Skiba of The Chicago Tribune reports that “Rauner heads to U.S. Supreme Court for union case, calls it battle against ‘conflicts of interest, corruption.’”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Gorsuch silent as divided Supreme Court spars over unions.”

Lawrence Hurley and Robert Iafolla of Reuters report that “Conservative Supreme Court justices take aim at union fees.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clash Over Mandatory Union Fees.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Gorsuch silent as court sharply divided on union fees.”

Josh Gerstein and Mel Leonor of Politico report that “Gorsuch mum as Supreme Court rehears public employee union fight; At arguments, Kennedy takes strikingly hostile tone towards unions.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Key Justice In Today’s High-Profile Arguments Over Public Sector Union Fees Was Silent.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, No.16-1466.

“Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules”: Alan Feuer and Benjamin Weiser of The New York Times have this report.

Matt Zapotosky of The Washington Post reports that “Employers can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, court says, dealing loss to Trump administration.”

Nicole Hong of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Backs Gay Employees’ Right to Sue; Ruling finds federal civil-rights law covers sexual orientation in an issue has split the nation’s circuits.”

John Riley of Newsday reports that “Law banning sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, panel rules; The case involved Donald Zarda, a now-deceased gay skydiving instructor fired in 2010 by Altitude Express in Calverton.”

Larry Neumeister of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: US anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation.”

Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court says Title VII covers discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Erik Larson, Bob Van Voris, Josh Eidelson, and Jeff Green of Bloomberg News report that “Gay Workers Get Win Over Trump With U.S. Anti-Bias Ruling.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN has a report headlined “Court: Civil Rights Law protects claims of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Federal Court Just Ruled For Gay Rights In A Major Discrimination Case; The decision is a loss for the Justice Department, which argued that a 1964 civil rights law doesn’t protect gay workers.”

And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post titled “2nd Circuit demolishes key DOJ argument against workplace protection for gays.”

You can access today’s 163-page en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court Turns Down Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case”: Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear of The New York Times have this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court declines to enter controversy over ‘dreamers,’ rejects Trump administration’s request to review lower court rulings.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court extends relief for ‘Dreamers,’ refuses to rule now on Trump immigration plan.”

Richard Wolf and Alan Gomez of USA Today report that “Supreme Court snubs Trump, keeps DACA immigration program in place for now.”

Brent Kendall and Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Deals Setback to Trump Immigration Policy on ‘Dreamers’; Justices won’t take up quick appeal of ruling that has blocked end of Obama program for young undocumented immigrants.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “DACA program still active after Supreme Court declines to speed appeal; Dreamers can apply for renewal, but no new applications allowed.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court declines to decide fate of ‘Dreamers’ just yet.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court rejects Trump over ‘Dreamers’ immigrants.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Rebuffs Trump, Won’t Hear Immigration Appeal.”

And Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan of CNN report that “Supreme Court won’t hear Trump bid to end DACA program.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Supreme Court Grills Both Sides in States’ Challenge of American Express; American Express Co.’s card rules for merchants prompted strong reactions at the Supreme Court Monday”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court liberals skeptical of American Express merchant fees.”

And David McLaughlin of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Amex Rules in Antitrust Enforcement Test.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454.

“Supreme Court considers free speech vs. retaliatory arrests”: Curt Anderson of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court to Hear Microsoft Case on Emails, Customer Data Stored Overseas; U.S. law enforcement seeks access to information stored on foreign servers when investigating crimes”: Brent Kendall and Nicole Hong of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Tech Takes On Trump as Supreme Court Looks at Data Stored Abroad.”

Agence France-Presse reports that “Microsoft data warrant case in top US court has global implications.”

Julia Fioretti of Reuters reports that “Europe seeks power to seize overseas data in challenge to tech giants.”

Kate Conger of Gizmodo reports that “Microsoft’s Big Email Privacy Case Heads to the Supreme Court Tomorrow.”

At the “Lawfare” blog, Matthew Kahn has a post titled “Microsoft-Ireland Oral Argument Preview: Will the Supreme Court Stave Off Data Localization?”

And in commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “Microsoft’s Legal Cloud Cover: Must a company comply with a warrant on records stored abroad?”

And online at The New York Times, Craig A. Newman has an essay titled “Can the United States Search Data Overseas?”

“OT2017 #15: ‘Respected By All Sides.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Dan Epps, via this link.

“Supreme Court to hear arguments in global digital privacy case”: Mark Scott and Ashley Gold of Politico have this report.

“The Gun Control Movement’s Silent Ally: The Supreme Court; The justices haven’t taken a Second Amendment case in almost a decade, to the benefit of states — like Florida — that want to tighten gun laws.” Matt Ford of The Atlantic has this report.