“U.S. chief justice realizes longstanding vision in voting-rights case”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this news analysis.

“On the cusp of a cultural moment, all eyes are on the Supreme Court”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report.

“What the Court’s ‘Baby Veronica’ Ruling Means for Fathers and Native Americans: Lost amid coverage of the Voting Rights Act ruling was a decision in a complicated and emotional adoption case.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“U.S. court to hear oral arguments in net neutrality case on Sept. 9”: Reuters has this report.

“Custody battle for baby Veronica continues as Supreme Court sides with James Island family”: The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina has this news update.

Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article headlined “Justices Say Law Doesn’t Require Child’s Return to Indian Father.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court says law doesn’t require custody for Indian father.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Court rules for adoptive parents in Baby Veronica case; Little ‘Baby Veronica’ was adopted for more than two years, but an obscure law preventing the breakup of Native American families had forced her return to her father.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices rule for adoptive couple in Native-American custody dispute.”

First Circuit rejects Joel Tenenbaum’s due process challenge to $675,000 award against him for copyright infringement involving illegal music downloads and distribution: You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.

“Affirmative-Action Ruling Could Complicate Diversity Efforts”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report online today.

“Scalia the Mullah: The justice’s misunderstanding of morality, and how it leads him astray in cases about homosexuality.” Nathaniel Frank has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Lawyer’s Evolution, Mirroring the Law’s”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, John Schwartz has an article that begins, “When the Supreme Court justices announce their decisions in two cases that could reshape marriage in America, few people will be listening more closely than Paul M. Smith, whose life and career have been entwined with the court’s three-decade evolution on gay rights.”

“NY court: Computer searches can threaten privacy.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A New York federal appeals court says authorities may have gone too far in their search of an ex-convict’s computer.”

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

“Supreme Court backs landowner in Fla. wetlands case, opens door to more permit scrutiny”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“On Voting Rights, A Decision As Lamentable as Plessy or Dred Scott; Splitting 5-4 along ideological lines, today the Supreme Court ruled a key provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional”: Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“U.S. CFTC wins fund registration court appeal”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Court says suit testing blogger’s rights can go on”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court says former Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod can continue her defamation case against a conservative blogger.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Zoe Tillman has a post titled “D.C. Circuit: Defamation Suit Against Breitbart Can Proceed.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court overturns Voting Rights Act section, sides with Shelby County”: The Birmingham News has this report.

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act.”

And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court strikes down key section of Voting Rights Act.”

“U.S. Supreme Court expected to decide gay marriage cases Wednesday”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.

“Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act”: Brent Kendall and Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal have this news update.

Richard Wolf and Brad Heath of USA Today have an article headlined “Supreme Court limits key part of Voting Rights Act; Ruling from deeply divided court will free mostly Southern states from seeking federal preclearance for voting changes, or require Congress to intervene.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court strikes down key provision of Voting Rights Act.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Voting Rights Act Formula.”

“Supreme Court strongly pro-business in Roberts years”: David Weinberg of American Public Media’s “Marketplace” had this report yesterday.

“Supreme Court Rules Against Florida Regulators Imposing ‘Extortionate Demands’ on Property Owner”: Damon W. Root has this post at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog.

“Affirmative Action Ruling Seen Spurring Suits Against Colleges”: John Hechinger and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News have this report.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued three decisions in argued cases. The Court is planning to release the remaining decisions from this Term on Wednesday at 10 a.m. eastern time.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., No. 11-1447. Justice Elena Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader GInsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, No. 12-399. Justices Clarence Thomas and Breyer issued concurring opinions. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined and in which Justice Scalia joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court voids key part of Voting Rights Act.” The AP also has reports headlined “Court: Child isn’t required to go to father” and “Court: Compensation may be due for permit denial.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Voting Rights Act Provision Struck Down by U.S. High Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes down key part of Voting Rights Act.” And Jonathan Stempel reports that “Supreme Court rules for couple over baby girl’s adoption.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court strikes down key voting rights provision.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court limits federal oversight of Voting Rights Act.”

Sahil Kapur of TPM DC reports that “Supreme Court Guts The Voting Rights Act.”

And Ryan J. Reilly of The Huffington Post reports that “Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down By Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court lets stand ban on destroying property of L.A. homeless; Eight skid row residents accused city workers of seizing and dumping their personal possessions; A lower court ruled that possessions could be taken only if they posed a threat to safety”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“2 blockbusters among Supreme Court’s last cases”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court sends Fisher v. Texas case back to lower court”: The Daily Texan has this report.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Justices Take Pass on Texas Affirmative-Action Case.” In addition, Theodore R. Johnson has an op-ed titled “A Missed Opportunity on Racial Preferences; I’m tired of the suspicion that because I’m black, whatever I achieve is somehow suspect.”

Joan Biskupic of Reuters has a news analysis headlined “Supreme Court takes small step to bridge ideological divide.”

Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains a profile of Jennifer Gratz headlined “Plaintiff’s life defined by high court ruling in 2003 affirmative action case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court sends Texas affirmative action case back to lower court; The 7-to-1 Supreme Court decision requires the lower court to apply a new, tougher test to the case; Schools challenged on race-based admissions policies must show that there are no workable, race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity.”

Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg titled “Supreme Court Sends Affirmative Action Case To Lower Court.” And yesterday evening’s broadast of “All Things Considered” contained audio segments titled “Justices Seek ‘Strict Scrutiny’ In Affirmative Action Case” and “Affirmative Action Ruling A Win For Policy’s Advocates.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Returns Affirmative Action Case to Lower Court.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Supreme Court Compromises in Affirmative Action Case.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: More rigorous race review.”

In commentary, today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial titled “A Reprieve for Affirmative Action.” And Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger has an op-ed titled “A Long, Slow Drift From Racial Justice.”

Online at Slate, Richard D. Kahlenberg has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Next Affirmative Action? The Supreme Court just made it harder for universities to defend race-based affirmative action; Will they try using class instead?”

Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Cass R. Sunstein has an essay titled “Judicial Minimalism Triumphs in Affirmative Action Case.”

Online at The New Republic, law professors Jeffrey Rosen and Michael McConnell are participating in a discussion titled “Debating the Court’s Affirmative Action Decision: An exchange.”

Online at The Nation, law professor David Cole has an essay titled “Race at the Supreme Court.”

Online at The New Yorker, Louis Menand has a blog post titled “The Heart of Texas: Why Colleges Admit the Way They Do.”

Online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “A Narrow Escape for Affirmative Action: In October, it looked like the Fisher decision would fiercely split the Court; Instead, today’s compromise will make race-conscious admissions slightly harder, but not impossible.”

At “Balkinization,” Jack Balkin has a blog post titled “Why Fisher is Important.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough has an essay titled “Preserving affirmative action for the wrong reasons.” In addition, today’s newspaper contains an editorial titled “The right move on affirmative action: The Supreme Court’s ruling preserving affirmative action at state universities is admirable and necessary.” And law professor Vikram David Amar has an op-ed titled “Affirmative action: The door’s still open; Monday’s Supreme Court ruling means that there remains an opportunity for universities to continue to implement race-based admissions programs.”

And online at USA Today, Ilya Shapiro has an essay titled “Court punts but affirmative action on the ropes; Decision an important step toward judging Americans on qualifications rather than color.”

“Will Ginsburg’s Ledbetter Play Work Twice?” Jeffrey Toobin has this blog post online today at The New Yorker.