“Artis v. District of Columbia, part 2: Units of meaning and dictionary definitions.” Neal Goldfarb has this interesting post at his “LAWnLinguistics” blog.

“N.R.A. Logo? No. #MeToo Shirt? Maybe. Justices Weigh Political Apparel at Polls.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justices come armed with ‘what-ifs’ in reviewing ‘speech-free’ polling places.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Supreme Court conundrum: Should the right to vote depend on what you wear?”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Justices Question Minnesota’s Ban on Political Buttons at Polling Stations; State law enacted in 1912 seeks to protect ‘solemnity’ of voting from attire advertising election issues.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court questions state law banning political apparel at ballot box; Liberal justices question where to draw line; conservative justices wonder who gets to decide.”

Maya Rao of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court takes up Minnesota voter apparel case; Lawsuit challenges Minnesota’s restriction on voters wearing political messages to polling places on First Amendment grounds.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “MAGA hat, #MeToo pin? High court weighs voter clothing law.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report headlined “Too political to wear? Supreme Court debates voter apparel law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Seems Divided on Political-Apparel Bans at Polls.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Justices disturbed with law limiting apparel at voting booths, but struggle with solution.”

Bill Mears of FoxNews.com reports that “Supreme Court session on political buttons gets testy.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Examines Strict Laws For Inside Polling Places.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435.

“Must Tech Firms Provide Data Held Abroad? Justices Struggle to Apply 1986 Law.” Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima reports that “Supreme Court grapples with access to globalized data in U.S. investigations.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sounds wary of Microsoft’s shield for emails stored abroad.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Nicole Hong have an article headlined “High Court Grapples With Case of Emails Stored Abroad; Justices raise concerns that Microsoft’s resistance to court orders for data stored overseas would hurt U.S. law enforcement.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court looks to Congress to settle U.S.-Microsoft data dispute.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs government’s reach of records kept on foreign servers; Case before justices involves government’s demand to see emails of Microsoft customer.”

Tim Johnson of McClatchy DC reports that “Tech sector frets it could face fallout if Microsoft case erodes privacy protections.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices look at how older law applies to internet cloud.”

Lawrence Hurley and Dustin Volz of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with Microsoft data privacy fight.”

Bob Van Voris of Bloomberg News reports that “Some Supreme Court Justices Back Government in Email Fight With Microsoft.”

And Josh Gerstein and Ashley Gold of Politico report that “Justices struggle with U.S. demands for overseas data.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2.

“Opinion analysis: Sharply divided court narrowly approves Congress’ power to resolve pending litigation.” Ronald Mann has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“No Bail Hearings for Detained Immigrants, Supreme Court Rules”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court throws out ruling that said detained immigrants deserve bond hearings.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court strengthens government’s power to jail immigrants who face deportation.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court allows indefinite immigrant detentions.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Overturns Rule Ensuring Noncitizen Bail Hearings; Conservative justices send case back to lower court to consider constitutionality of indefinite detention.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Illegal immigrants have no automatic right to freedom, Supreme Court rules.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court nixes periodic hearings for detained immigrants.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court curbs rights of immigrants awaiting deportation.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Detained Immigrants on Bond Hearings.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court narrowly rules against non-citizens facing deportation.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Rules That Detained Would-Be Immigrants Have No Right To Bail Hearings Under Federal Law.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204, at this link.

“Supreme Court sympathetic to Florida man arrested by city officials he criticized”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court defends free speech of Florida agitator Fane Lozman in his fight against city.”

Alex Daugherty of The Miami Herald reports that “U.S. chief justice calls video of South Florida man’s arrest ‘pretty chilling.’”

And Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “In free speech case, justices troubled by Fla. man’s arrest.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, No. 17-21.

“The Cruelty of Executing the Sick and Elderly: Two controversial cases in Alabama reveal a disturbing trend in the death penalty in America.” Matt Ford of The Atlantic has this report.