“The Supreme Court Creates a Lawless Presidency”: Law professor Kate Shaw has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court term focused on Trump, abortion, guns and administrative state”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“As Trump dominated the docket, divided Supreme Court moved boldly to the right; There were fresh signs of a fractured conservative coalition on the Supreme Court even as the justices reshaped federal agency and presidential power”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“The First Amendment Is Out of Control”: Law professor Tim Wu has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“In a Volatile Term, a Fractured Supreme Court Remade America; Amid signs of dysfunction and disarray, Chief Justice John Roberts reasserted his authority, while the influence of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito waned”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Pfizer defends appellate court’s ‘naming names’ rule in lawsuit over diversity program”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Appeals Court Reinstates $10 Billion Bank Lawsuit After WSJ Investigation Into Conflicts; Federal judge shouldn’t have presided over the lawsuit against Bank of America and others, court rules”: James V. Grimaldi of The Wall Street Journal has this report on a per curiam decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“A Decision of Surpassing Recklessness in Dangerous Times; The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States would have been wrong and dangerous at any time; It’s uncommonly so with Trump poised to retake power”: Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes have this post at the “Lawfare” blog.

“Judge Andrew Brasher”: You can access today’s new episode of the “For the Defense with David Oscar Markus” podcast via this link.

“Charlottesville Rally Leaders Face Higher Damages on Appeal; Lower court cut $24 million award by too much, 4th Cir. says; Va.’s $350,000 punitive damages cap to apply per plaintiff”: Mike Vilensky of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Emperor Trump? Supreme Court Just Expanded the Imperial Presidency; The conservative justices set aside their judicial principles in a ruling that would horrify America’s founders.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Purdue Ruling Tees Up ‘Consent’ Question for Bankruptcy Courts; Supreme Court didn’t define consensual liability releases; Court rulings on opt-out provisions poised to loom large”: Evan Ochsner of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Supreme Court Sidesteps New Gun Cases as It Closes Out Term; High court leaves Illinois ‘assault weapons’ bans in place; Court orders reconsideration of New York law, felon gun ban”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“John Roberts embraces Donald Trump’s view of the presidency”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this news analysis.

“SCOTUS Hands Trump Presidential Immunity”: You can access yesterday’s episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

And yesterday’s episode of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast is titled “Trump Is ‘Absolutely Immune’ … Kind Of.”

“Did Justice Alito Lose The Majority Opinions In Trevino and NetChoice? Alito had only four majority opinions this term, while Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan all had seven.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court grants Trump a malignant degree of immunity”: Quin Hillyer has this essay online at Washington Examiner.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in five cases, two of which were consolidated for oral argument.

In Price v. Montgomery County, Ky., No. 23-649, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.

In Harrel v. Raoul, No. 23-877, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement.

In McCrory v. Alabama, No. 23-6232, Justice Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.

In King v. Emmons, No. 23-668, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, from the denial of certiorari.

In Allstates Refractory Contractors v. Su, No. 23-819, Justice Thomas issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

In Bassett v. Arizona, No. 23-830, Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson joined, from the denial of certiorari.

And in Doe v. Snap, Inc., No. 23-961, Justice Thomas issued a dissent, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined, from the denial of certiorari.

“Abortion Rights Supporters Put a Winning Strategy to the Test in Arkansas; Organizers have until Friday to collect enough signatures to put abortion access on the ballot this fall in a state where conservative and evangelical values run deep”: Emily Cochrane of The New York Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Tech Platforms’ Free Speech Rights; The justices unanimously returned two cases, which concerned state laws that supporters said were aimed at ‘Silicon Valley censorship,’ to lower courts; Critics had said the laws violated the sites’ First Amendment rights”: Abbie VanSickle, David McCabe, and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.

Will Oremus, Cat Zakrzewski, and Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court orders second look at Texas and Florida social media laws; The Supreme Court vacated lower court judgements on social media laws in Texas and Florida that would have prevented social media companies from removing posts.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court puts off ruling on whether state social media laws violate the 1st Amendment.”

Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Avoids Final Decision on State Regulation of Social Media; Court orders more proceedings on laws in Texas and Florida that seek to regulate online platforms’ content-moderation practices.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sends GOP-backed social media cases back to lower courts in moderation fight; Social media companies argued that governments can’t tell them what it must post, just as a state can’t tell a newspaper what to publish.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court ducks ruling on red states’ social media censorship laws.”

“Clarence Thomas Raised Another Issue: Was Jack Smith Legally Appointed? In his concurrence to the immunity decision, the justice questioned whether there was a legal basis for naming the special counsel — a topic also being explored by the judge in the documents case.” Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

And Perry Stein of The Washington Post reports that “Thomas uses Trump immunity ruling to question Jack Smith appointmentEchoing a long-shot argument made by Donald Trump’s attorneys in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas said special counsels need Senate confirmation.”

“Supreme Court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case; The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen; In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has a news analysis headlined “What the Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision Means for Trump; The decision most likely delays Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case past the election, and if he wins in November, people close to him expect the Justice Department to drop the charges.”

Alan Feuer of The New York Times reports that “Ruling Further Slows Trump Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence; The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.”

Ann E. Marimow and Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post report that “Justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump’s trial; The justices said unofficial acts have no immunity, sending Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case back to the D.C. judge to decide which alleged acts are official.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court gives Trump broad immunity from prosecution — for the past and perhaps future.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Deals Blow to Trump’s Prosecution, Ruling He Has Broad Immunity; Decision further hamstrings federal case alleging Trump illegally attempted to overturn 2020 election results.”

Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen of USA Today have an article headlined “In historic ruling on presidential immunity, Supreme Court says Trump can be tried for private acts.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court rules presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, but not unofficial acts.”

“A dramatic last day in the courtroom”: Mark Walsh has this “View from the Court” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Trump Isn’t Going to Like the Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision; In particular, there’s a single line in the majority opinion that lets Special Counsel Jack Smith retain plenty of leeway”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court Social Media Ruling Is a Free-Speech Landmark; Moody v. NetChoice is a milestone ruling in First Amendment law, giving internet platforms the highest level of constitutional protection”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in the three remaining undecided cases from this Term.

1. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, No. 22-1008. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22-277. Justice Barrett issued a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. And Justice Jackson issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“The Supreme Court ‘running of the interns’ comes to the finish line; For decades, Washington’s lowliest denizens delivered the Supreme Court’s most important decisions; Now, the internet has made the beloved tradition nearly obsolete”: Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News has this report.

“How the Supreme Court’s blockbuster ‘Chevron’ ruling puts countless regulations in jeopardy”: Tierney Sneed, Jeanne Sahadi, Tami Luhby, Brian Fung, Ella Nilsen, Jen Christensen, and Katie Lobosco of CNN have this report.

“She cemented a conservative Supreme Court, but a ‘cautious’ Justice Barrett sometimes resists the far-right flank; In several recent cases, the Trump appointee has written opinions criticizing conservative colleagues and has at times sided with liberal justices”: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News has this report.

“Monday: A historic day at the Court.” Lyle Denniston has this blog post.

“Opinionpalooza: The Day SCOTUS Became President; The Supreme Court Has Decided They Know More Than Everyone Else About Everything Ever.” You can access today’s new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

And the newest episode of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast is titled “Chevron Is Dead, Long Live Chevron.”

“Social Conservatives Push Trump on the G.O.P.’s Anti-Abortion Platform; Leaders of the anti-abortion movement sent a letter to Donald J. Trump amid worries he may try to weaken the anti-abortion language in the party platform”: Shane Goldmacher and Jonathan Swan pf The New York Times have this report.

“Texas Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gender Transition Care for Minors; The all-Republican court voted 8 to 1 to leave in effect a law enacted last year during a wave of legislation targeting transgender rights”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

And William Melhado and Asad Jung of The Texas Tribune report that “Texas Supreme Court upholds ban on transition-related care for minors; Parents and medical providers of transgender adolescents sued Texas, challenging the constitutionality of a restriction on puberty blockers and hormone therapy.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consisted of the opinion of the court, three concurring opinions (here, here, and here), and a dissenting opinion.

“A String of Supreme Court Decisions Hits Hard at Environmental Rules; Four cases backed by conservative activists in recent years have combined to diminish the power of the Environmental Protection Agency”: Coral Davenport of The New York Times has this report.

“The Imperial Supreme Court”: Law professor Kate Shaw has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

Also online there, Yuval Levin has a guest essay titled “The Supreme Court Thinks That by Arguing More, We Can Be Less Divided.”