“End of an Era at the Supreme Court”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Apple Loses Federal Appeal in E-Books Case; iPhone maker is expected to pay $450 million, most of it to e-book consumers”: Joe Palazzolo of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Apple loses appeal on e-book antitrust suit.”

Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters have an article headlined “Apple conspired to fix e-book prices — U.S. appeals court.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Apple a Step Closer to Paying $400 Million to E-Book Users.”

The Associated Press reports that “US court agrees Apple violated antitrust law in e-book entry.”

Ars Technica reports that “Appeals court says Apple is liable for e-book price fixing; Apple lost a price fixing case, fought the charges, but found no help in higher court.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Apple Fails to Overturn E-Book Price-Fixing Ruling on Appeal; The 2nd Circuit rules that Apple must suffer condemnation for conspiring with book publishers.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Rhetoric and Reason in Obergefell”: Richard M. Re has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Evolving Standards of Decency That Mark the Progress of Maturing Justices”: Michael Dorf had this post yesterday at “Dorf on Law.”

“A few words on Obergefell and the countermajoritarian tendency”: David Post had this entry yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Oklahoma to quickly resume executions after Supreme Court decision”: Reuters has a report that begins, “Oklahoma is looking to resume executions as soon as August after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that a drug used in the state’s lethal injection mix was appropriate and legal, officials said on Tuesday.”

“Ten Commandments Ruling: Attorney General Scott Pruitt says court ‘got it wrong.'” The Oklahoman has a news update that begins, “An Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the Ten Commandments monument must be removed from the state Capitol grounds touched off a storm of protests Tuesday with several lawmakers calling for the impeachment of the seven justices who supported the decision.”

“A court of one: Anthony Kennedy.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this op-ed online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Origin Story: How the 1942 case of a one-footed chicken thief laid the foundation for marriage equality.” Law professor David L. Franklin has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Fractious Majority: The Supreme Court’s conservatives increasingly disagree with one another.” Law professor Eric Posner has this essay online today at Slate.

“Is the Supreme Court More Liberal Than Obama? One of the administration’s closest allies was Clarence Thomas.” Law professor Adam Winkler has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

“Mercury ruling sets up legal ‘crapshoot’ on Clean Power Plan”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report today.

“How Liberals Pitched A Near-Perfect Game This Supreme Court Term”: Ian Millhiser has this post online today at ThinkProgress.

“Ten Commandments monument must be removed from grounds of state Capitol, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday”: The Oklahoman has this news update.

Barbara Hoberock of The Tulsa World has a news update headlined “State Supreme Court rules against Ten Commandments monument at Capitol.”

Reuters reports that “Oklahoma Supreme Court orders removal of Ten Commandments monument.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Oklahoma court: Ten Commandments monument must come down.”

You can access today’s 7-to-2 per curiam ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at this link.

“Supreme Court Tacks Left, With Push From Disciplined Liberals”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Has the Court Turned Left?” David Cole has this post at the blog of The New York Review of Books.

“Supreme Court Rebuffs Lawmakers Over Independent Redistricting Panel”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Justices rule 5-4 that independent panels can draw election district lines.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “California officials praise Supreme Court ruling on independent redistricting commissions.”

Brent Kendall and Isaac Stanley-Becker of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Initiative on Redrawing Voting Districts; Ruling allows states to use independent commissions to draw congressional lines.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court OKs independent redistricting panels.”

Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has an article headlined “‘Legislature’ vs. ‘people’: Court allows independent boards to draw Arizona congressional maps.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court upholds Arizona experiment against partisan politics.”

Rebekah L. Sanders and Mary Jo Pitzl of The Arizona Republic report that “Supreme Court upholds Arizona political map.”

Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Supreme Court upholds Arizona congressional lines.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona redistricting commission.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Independent Redistricting Panel Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: A cure for partisan gerrymandering?”

“Boutiques Wipe The Supreme Court Floor With BigLaw Rivals”: Jake Simpson of Law360.com has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “Appellate boutique firms had a banner year before the Supreme Court this term, winning nine of the 11 cases they argued and casting a big shadow over their BigLaw competition.”

“Mindlessly Literal Reading Loses Again: This Supreme Court decision is a dig at Bush v. Gore.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Second Circuit grants rehearing in Ganias computer search and seizure case”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in five new cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices take up dispute over union fees”; “Justices will hear new case on Arizona state redistricting“; and “High court won’t hear Nevada patient dumping case.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear case threatening public employee unions” and “Supreme Court to decide new war between the states.”

“One word sums up the Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell — ‘Enough!’ Courts are not forums for revisiting political defeats.” Robert Weiner has this post at Casetext.

“Conservatives Push Back Against Court’s Liberal Tilt”: Kenneth Jost had this post yesterday at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Supreme Court ends term with rulings on EPA, voter redistricting and lethal injection”: This video segment featuring Marcia Coyle appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS NewsHour.

“Supreme Court Concludes Term With Death Penalty Ruling, Looks Ahead”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”