“At Harvard, Kagan Aimed Sights Higher”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

“As Marshall clerk, Kagan was wary of conservatives”: Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press have this report.

“Would-be Chicago firefighters ponder court ruling”: The Associated Press has this report.

“This case concerns the crime of neonaticide, which is the killing of a newborn child on the first day of life. This crime is practically unknown in the federal courts.” So begins a dissenting opinion that Senior Eighth Circuit Judge Myron H. Bright issued today. The offense was prosecuted as a federal crime because it occurred on an Indian Reservation.

“Judiciary chairman defends Kagan against GOP fire”: The Associated Press has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court to weigh Arizona’s tax credit law”: The Arizona Republic contains this article today.

And in today’s edition of The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer reports that “Private-school money to get high-court look.”

“D.C. police filmed statement by defendant charged in coverup of lawyer’s killing”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “No Sign of Burglary, Officer Testifies in Wone Case.”

“Supreme Court rules against NFL in antitrust case; The 9-0 ruling declares the teams are individual businesses and not a ‘single entity’ and leaves owners open to be sued if they conspire to restrict competition in the sale of merchandise”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an article headlined “Court denies NFL antitrust exemption; Justices: Teams are separate enterprises.”

The New York Times reports that “N.F.L. Fails in Its Request for Antitrust Immunity.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Makes NFL Play Defense; Justices’ 9-0 Ruling Says League Isn’t Entitled to a Blanket Antitrust Exemption.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court rules against NFL in merchandising antitrust case; The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously that the NFL is not a single entity, but 32 different franchises, reversing an appeals court decision.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Broadsides NFL in Antitrust Case; The National Football League ‘snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,’ according to one antitrust expert.”

From NPR, yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Rules Against NFL In Antitrust Case” featuring Nina Totenberg. And today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Rules Against NFL In Antitrust Case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “No antitrust ‘Trojan horse.’”

“High Court Smooths Path to Plaintiff Fees in Disability Cases”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

“A B-Minus? The Shock! The Horror!” Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “She went on to be the dean of Harvard Law School, the solicitor general of the United States, and now a nominee to the Supreme Court. But in the fall of 1983, Elena Kagan was just another first-year law student at Harvard.” The newspaper has posted the nominee’s law school report card at this link.

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “White House Takes Over Court Nominee’s Prep.”

“U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear jailed L.A. lawyer’s contempt of court case; Richard Fine, 70, has been in solitary confinement since March 2009, taking his case all the way to the top court; He says he will continue to fight”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Black Firefighters’ Claim Was Timely, Justices Say”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices say employers may not use discriminatory testing practices.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court backs black applicants in firefighter discrimination suit; Chicago could be liable for as much as $100 million in damages in the case in which minority candidates passed a fire department exam but were not hired.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of blacks for Chicago firefighter jobs; Applicants did not wait too long to sue the city over a 1995 hiring test that they deemed discriminatory, court finds.”

The Chicago Sun-Times contains articles headlined “Supreme Court ruling could force Chicago to hire bypassed black firefighter candidates” and “Man gets second chance to try to fulfill firefighter dream.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court rules for African-Americans in firefighter hiring case; Some 6,000 African-American applicants for jobs with the Chicago Fire Department can proceed with a discrimination lawsuit over the firefighter hiring test, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.”

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “Supreme Court Says Bias Case Over Firefighter Hiring Can Move Forward.”