“The Roberts Court, Tipped by Kennedy”: Adam Liptak will have this news analysis Wednesday in The New York Times.

“High Court Losses Stun Environmentalists; Environmentalists are 0-for-5 at the Supreme Court this term”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

A similar article appeared recently in The Daily Journal of California.

“White House accepts convicted judge’s resignation”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Finds Bias Against White Firefighters”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Supreme Court Ruling Offers Little Guidance on Hiring.” And Linda Greenhouse has an op-ed entitled “The Court Changes the Game.”

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Rule for White Firemen In Bias Lawsuit; Sotomayor’s Decision Is Overturned.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “No Peril Seen for Sotomayor“; an editorial entitled “Flunking the Test: The Supreme Court should have had more information before deciding the case of New Haven firefighters“; and an op-ed by columnist George F. Will entitled “On Race, The Slog Goes On.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Ruling for white firefighters may alter hiring; The Supreme Court says white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were the victims of illegal discrimination when the city tossed out their test results and denied them promotions.” James Oliphant reports that “Ruling in firefighters case fuels critics of Sotomayor; The Supreme Court’s reversal of a discrimination ruling by an appeals panel that included Sotomayor is seen by conservatives as a rebuke of her handling of the case.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The Supreme Court’s discrimination ruling: It’s not black and white; The court faced complex issues in the New Haven, Conn., controversy; It offered a measured ruling.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Ruling’s impact on hiring weighed; High court reverses Sotomayor’s panel.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Firefighters ruling draws new lines on race and hiring; Better ways than rigid tests exist to determine job promotions” and an op-ed by Michael E. Rosman entitled “Make race irrelevant: Not every workplace can end up ‘looking like America.'”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Suzanne Sataline report that “Ruling Upends Race’s Role in Hiring.” Bravin also has an article headlined “Decision Reflects Court’s Deep Division.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Firefighter Justice: The Supremes, Sotomayor, and racial jurisprudence.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Firefighter ruling dials up heat on Sotomayor; The Supreme Court on Monday reversed a decision that she had made as part of a three-judge panel; The case centered on issues of race and discrimination.” The newspaper also has an op-ed entitled “The Ricci ruling’s real message: The heated, even political debate among the justices calls for a national race debate.” And law professor Kermit Roosevelt has an op-ed entitled “The Ricci riddle and the law’s limits: What you thought about the New Haven firefighters case was probably shaped less by logic or law than by your attitudes about the world.”

The New Haven Register contains articles headlined “Firefighters win: ‘Truest vindication’ yet to come“; “Alito’s opinion notes Kimber’s heavy hand“; and “Decision shouldn’t hurt Sotomayor, law experts say.”

The Hartford Courant reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of New Haven Firefighters; Supreme Court Firefighter Opinion reverses a decision that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of Conn. firefighters; Group accused city of racial discrimination.”

And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Justices Rule in Firefighters Bias Case, Bid Farewell to Souter.”

“Justices to Review Campaign Finance Law Constraints”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “High Court Poised to Rewrite Spending Rules.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Justices may end campaign finance ban on corporations; The high court delays a decision until next term on whether a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton can be regulated as a type of campaign ad.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “New Hearings Ordered in Campaign-Finance Case.”

And USA Today reports that “Justices will rehear ‘Hillary’ movie case.”

“Poetry, as Souter Takes Leave”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “After 19 years, Souter and the Supreme Court part, with poetry; As the New Englander retires, he and Chief Justice John Roberts exchange warm letters of farewell — and a few verses of Robert Frost.”

And today in The Washington Post, Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “Mr. Smith Leaves Washington.”

“Supreme Court Allows Wider DVR Use”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Court clears way for Cablevision to offer remote-storage DVR; Cable subscribers would be able to store programs to watch later; Justices turn down an appeal from broadcasters and Hollywood studios, which said the extra viewings would violate copyrights.”

And The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Boosts Remote DVR; Cablevision’s Victory Could Lead to Wider Compromise on New Technology.”

“Supreme Court Refuses Case by Sept. 11 Victims’ Families”: Eric Lichtblau has this article today in The New York Times.

And The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “Justices uphold rejection of 9/11 suit against Saudis.”

“Justices Rule That States Can Press Bank Cases”: John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that “States Get More Power to Challenge National Banks.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Jim Puzzanghera reports that “States gain more power over banks; Supreme Court says local governments can enforce some of their consumer protections against national financial institutions.”

The Washington Post reports that “Ruling Adds Teeth to State Oversight of Banks; Supreme Court Gives States Power to Take Nationally Chartered Banks to Court Over Lending Practices.”

McClatchy Newspapers report that “Scalia breaks ranks, slams Bush officials on bank regulation.”

USA Today reports that “States win right to probe banks; Supreme Court ruling sides with consumers, civil rights groups.”

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Rules States Can Enforce Fair Lending Laws.”

“Tracing Xenophobic Internet Chatter to Its Roots in New Jersey Town”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The words of Hal Turner, incendiary and provincial as they might seem, have echoed far beyond the small Internet radio studio in his home in North Bergen, N.J., where, until his arrest last week, a neighbor knew him to be cordial if frequently confrontational.”

“New Rift Opens Over Rights of Detainees”: Yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin had a front page article that begins, “The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.”

“No Regrets on Prop 8, Calif. Chief Justice Says”: law.com has this report.

“High court curves in conservative direction; This term’s trend was narrower interpretations”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“Court: Stay tuned on campaign funds, civil rights.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “On civil rights and campaign cash, the Supreme Court earned an ‘incomplete’ grade in the term that just ended.”

“Campaign Finance Case and the Vote on Sotomayor”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

And at his “Election Law Blog,” law professor Rick Hasen has a post titled “Citizens United: What Did Justice Souter Know and When Did He Know It?”

“Supreme Court says Franken won; Coleman concedes and Pawlenty says he will sign an election certificate”: The St. Paul Pioneer Press has this news update.

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Court Backs Franken in Senate Race; Coleman Concedes.”

And The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Norm Coleman concedes Minnesota Senate race to Al Franken; The former senator concedes after the Minnesota Supreme Court rules in Franken’s favor in the long ballot recount.”

“State Supreme Court rules for Franken, 5-0”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a news update that begins, “The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Democrat Al Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he was entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Minn. court rules for Franken in Senate fight.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota at this link.

“New York City bar: Sotomayor ‘highly qualified.'” The Associated Press has this report.

You can access the organization’s press release by clicking here.

“Thoughts on this Term and the Next”: Tom Goldstein has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court takes Weyhrauch mail-fraud issue; Lawyer says decision deals ‘serious blow’ to federal case”: The Anchorage Daily News today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal by former Alaska Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch that prosecutors shouldn’t be allowed to say he cheated Alaska’s citizens when he secretly sought work from the oil-field service company Veco during the 2006 legislative session.”