“Louisiana Supreme Court dismisses role of politics, race in ruling on chief judge”: John Simerman of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has a news update that begins, “Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Bernette Johnson is legally entitled to be the court’s next leader, the court ruled Tuesday in a unanimous decision, ending several months of legal and political rancor. Johnson is now set to become the state’s first black chief justice.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “After spat, La. to have 1st black chief justice.”

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

Update: In other coverage, Bloomberg News reports that “Louisiana Supreme Court to Get First Black Chief Justice.”

“Kavanaugh Defies ‘Partisan Shock Trooper’ Label”: Brent Kendall and Peter Landers have this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Ideological balance on bench at stake as election approaches”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.

“High court won’t block early voting in Ohio”: The Associated Press has this report.

Reuters reports that “Supreme Court denies Ohio’s request to curtail early voting.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Ohio rebuffed on early voting.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

Update: In other coverage, Adam Liptak of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Justices Reject Appeal Over Early Voting in Ohio.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court won’t get involved in Ohio dispute; all must be allowed to vote early.”

The Columbus Dispatch has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rejects Husted’s early voting appeal.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court denies Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s appeal over early voting rules.”

And The Cincinnati Enquirer has a news update headlined “Supreme Court OK’s Ohio early voting.”

“Shirley and Megan Phelps-Roper brought this First Amendment facial challenge to an ordinance adopted by the city of Manchester to regulate the time and place of picketing at funerals and burials.” So begins an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

The second-to-last paragraph of today’s ruling offers the following summary of the outcome:

We conclude that the Phelps-Ropers have not shown in their facial challenge to Manchester’s amended ordinance that the city has imposed unconstitutional limits on the time, place, and manner of their picketing. Manchester only limits picketing and other protest activities within 300 feet of a funeral or burial service while it is occurring and for one hour before and after, and it survives First Amendment scrutiny because it serves a significant government interest, it is narrowly tailored, and it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication.

The original three-judge panel’s ruling in this case had reached an opposite result. My earlier coverage of that ruling can be accessed here.

Update: In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: Town can restrict funeral protests.”

“Court throws out conviction of bin Laden driver”: The Associated Press has this report.

Bloomberg News reports that “Osama bin Laden Driver Hamdan Wins Appeals Court Reversal.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Hamdan conviction overturned.”

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

Update: In other coverage, Terry Baynes of Reuters reports that “Appeals court reverses bin Laden driver’s conviction.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Court overturns conviction of bin Laden driver.”

“Supreme Court justice’s car ticketed by Philly’s Parking Authority”: At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Scott Bomboy has a post that begins, “The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, but no justice, even Antonin Scalia, is apparently safe on the streets of Philadelphia when it comes to its Parking Authority.”

Justice Antonin Scalia was in Philadelphia yesterday in connection with this event.

“Newest Minn. Supreme Court justice set to take oath in historic addition to state’s high court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Court hears case on affirmative action”: The Daily Tar Heel contains this article today.

The Harvard Crimson reports today that “Ed School Affiliates Argue for University of Texas.”

The Stanford Daily contains an article headlined “Stanford administrators committed to affirmative action.” Yesterday, Stanford University issued a news release headlined “Legal brief from Stanford, other universities to be considered in affirmative action case; Stanford and 13 other private universities have submitted an amicus brief as part of the Supreme Court’s consideration of a high-profile university admissions case.”

Yesterday’s edition of The Daily Californian contains an article headlined “Affirmative Action: Student diversity impacted by race-neutral admissions policy.”

Today’s edition of The Daily Pennsylvanian contains an editorial entitled “Race matters, at least for now; Affirmative action is the only tried and true method to ensure diversity.”

The Brown Daily Herald contains an editorial entitled “Alums, athletes and affirmative action.”

In The Cavalier Daily, Sam Novack has an op-ed entitled “Admitting mistakes: The Supreme Court should overturn precedent by ruling that affirmative action merely perpetuates the inequalities it attempts to correct.”

In The Houstonian, Taylor Likens has an op-ed entitled “UT Austin’s affirmative action policy counterproductive, breeding casual racism.”

And online at National Journal, Mee Moua has an essay entitled “Why Affirmative Action Is Still Needed in College Admissions.”

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kagan to visit UT”: This article appears today in The Daily Beacon, the student newspaper of the University of Tennessee.

“Court to hear arguments in Calif. clean fuels case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court will hear arguments in a case seeking to stop California’s first-in-the-nation mandate requiring petroleum refiners and ethanol producers to make cleaner fuels for millions of cars and trucks in the state.”