“State high court tosses out ban on gay foster parents”: This article appears today in The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Arkansas at this link.

“Roberts’s Rule: Chief Justice John Roberts presided over a more harmonious, more conservative Supreme Court.” Debra Rosenberg has this essay online at Newsweek.com.

“New Supreme Court begins to show its stripes”: Stephen Henderson McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.

“Justices, 5-3, Broadly Reject Bush Plan to Try Detainees”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times. Related articles are headlined “Ruling Leaves Uncertainty at Guantanamo” and “Court’s Ruling Is Likely to Force Negotiations Over Presidential Power.” And an editorial is entitled “A Victory for the Rule of Law.”

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals; 5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President’s Claim Of Wartime Power.” Related articles are headlined “A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed; Ruling Emphasizes Constitutional Boundaries“; “U.S. Officials Scramble to Find Options; Senate Committee Plans Legislation; Experts Lean Toward Courts-Martial“; and “Europeans Cheer Ruling on Guantanamo Trials; U.S. Court’s Decision Raises Hopes Prison Will Close but Underscores Problems With Repatriation.” An editorial is entitled “A Victory for Law: The Supreme Court checks the Bush administration’s attempt to invent its own rules for war.” Columnist Eugene Robinson has an op-ed entitled “Checking the Decider.” And columnist David Ignatius has an op-ed entitled “Fight Terror — With Law.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “High Court Rejects Bush’s Claim That He Alone Sets Detainee Rules; The 5-3 decision is a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s policy, saying it went too far in planning tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners.” Related articles are headlined “Lonely Victory for U.S. Navy Lawyer; Convinced that denying his Yemeni client Geneva Convention rights posed a dangerous precedent, the officer bucked military brass” and “Military Fought to Abide by War Rules.” An editorial is entitled “Bush vs. the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision should be enough for the president start taking the Constitution seriously.” Columnist Rosa Brooks has an op-ed entitled “Did Bush commit war crimes? Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution.” And Harvey Silverglate has an op-ed entitled “Step back, imperial president; Supreme Court’s decision on military tribunals restores the role of the judiciary.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a front page article headlined “Trial and Error: Justices Bar Guantanamo Tribunals; High Court Says President Exceeded War Powers; He May Turn to Congress; Ruling Won’t Free Prisoners” (free access).

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Laura Parker report that “Justices reject Gitmo tribunals; Court: Bush plan exceeds authority.” Biskupic also has an article headlined “Court’s rationale could affect other issues; 2001 resolution was used to justify wiretap program.” In related coverage, “Ruling doesn’t mean facility is closing at Guantanamo; Senate bill would authorize Bush to set up tribunals.” And an editorial is entitled “Terrorists merit punishment; suspects deserve fair trials; Supreme Court orders rewrite of rules for trying war detainees.”

The Chicago Tribune contains articles headlined “Tribunals ruled illegal; Court: Guantanamo trials violate U.S., global laws“; “High court curbs war powers; Justices’ ruling called ‘significant defeat’ for administration“; and “Questions raised about detainees.”

In The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Justices deal Bush setback on tribunals; High court says Guantanamo action illegal.” And an editorial is entitled “No blank check for Bush.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Supreme Court blocks Bush on terror tribunals; Justices rule that Guantanamo detainees are protected by the Geneva Conventions.” And an editorial is entitled “Return of due process.”

Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Bush seeks Congress’ help in bringing terror suspects to justice; Supreme Court rejects Guantanamo military trials.”

The Baltimore Sun contains articles headlined “Justices limit wartime powers; Bush dealt setback in 5-3 ruling against military tribunals” and “Decision is setback for Bush; President’s aim has been to pursue ever-broadening wartime authority.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Court Sidelines Bush’s War Crimes Strategy.” And an editorial is entitled “Mr. Pyrrhus, Call Your Lawyer.”

Newsday reports that “High court rules against Gitmo trials; Justices rule that commissions set up by Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees are illegal, but president has a range of options.”

The Washington Times reports that “High court throws out Gitmo tribunal.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A war-time precedent.”

In The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg reports that “It’s just another day at detention camp; Interrogations and construction of more prisons continued at Guantanamo on the day the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. military commissions.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court ruling may ripple through other Bush policies.”

“Because we find that the City’s sign ordinance is a content-based regulation that fails strict scrutiny, we need not consider whether the district court erred in holding that the ordinance impermissibly burdened core political speech.”Circuit Judge Ed Carnes issued this opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“Is the Honeymoon Over for the Roberts Court?” law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this report.

Tenth Circuit affirms federal criminal convictions and resulting 39-year sentence imposed on defendant who made a Molotov cocktail from a beer bottle and a rag, ignited it, and threw it at an outside door alcove of a synagogue in Oklahoma City: According to today’s opinion, “[f]ortunately, no one was injured and damage to the Temple was minor, consisting mostly of some broken glass and charred walls.” Among other challenges, the defendant argued on appeal that the conviction violated the Commerce Clause and that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

“We consider in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005), whether Congress can use its commerce power to ban possession of homemade machineguns.” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The opinion upholds Congress’s exercise of that power.

“We deal on this appeal with the trademark of a trendy luxury women’s handbag, a handbag so instantly popular with purchasers that legions of imitators quickly appeared on the fashion scene after plaintiff Vuitton introduced it in October 2002.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued its ruling in a trademark infringement lawsuit captioned Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Available online at the First Amendment Center: Tony Mauro has a news analysis headlined “Despite splintered decision, Buckley tree still stands.”

And David L. Hudson Jr. has a news analysis headlined “Ruling bolsters ‘deprivation’ of prisoner rights.”

“Former judge is found guilty; Donald Thompson is convicted of four counts of indecent exposure”: This article appears today in The Tulsa World.

The Oklahoman reports today that “Former Creek County judge convicted.”

And The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald reports that “Thompson facing prison time for indecent exposure” and “Prosecution shocks in closing arguments.”

“A move to save the San Diego cross”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

And on Wednesday, The San Diego Union-Tribune contained an article headlined “Bill would have feds take over cross, land; 3 county congressmen sponsor latest proposal.”

“3rd Circuit Refuses to Delay FCC Wireless Auction”: law.com’s Shannon P. Duffy provides this news update.

“Early Supreme Court Consensus Fades”: The Associated Press provides this end-of-Term wrap-up report.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List: It is available at this link.

Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Ariz., Texas Lose Death Penalty Appeals.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Final orders: no grants.”

Programming note: Due to my speaking appearance later this morning in Dedham, Massachusetts, additional posts will appear online here this evening. Lots of new posts from last night and this morning can be accessed below.

“First Mack hearing set”: This article appears today in The Reno Gazette-Journal.

“When a peace officer directs the driver of a vehicle to pull over for a traffic stop but, in effecting the stop, gives no indication that the passenger of the vehicle is the focus of the officer’s investigation or show of authority, is the passenger subjected to a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? This is a question that has divided courts inside and outside this state.” The Supreme Court of California, dividing 4-3, issued this ruling yesterday. The majority holds: “We find that the passenger, whose progress is momentarily stopped as a practical matter, is not seized as a constitutional matter in the absence of additional circumstances that would indicate to a reasonable person that he or she was the subject of the peace officer’s investigation or show of authority.”

“Girls’ suit allowed to proceed; Christian school believed they were lesbians, let them go”: Yesterday in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko had an article that begins, “Two girls who were expelled by a Christian high school because the principal believed they were lesbians won the state Supreme Court’s permission to sue the school Wednesday in a case that tests the reach of California’s anti-discrimination law in a private religious academy.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Guantanamo Decision Puts President in Difficult Spot” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Guantanamo Prison’s Future Unclear After Court Ruling“; and “Congress Appears Ready to Give President More Power.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “World Skeptical Over Guantanamo Bay Ruling“; “Congressional Hearings on Guantanamo Set“; and “Schedule Set in Texas Redistricting Case.”

“Partisan, territorial spats plague 4th Circuit; With four available seats, senators from North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia spar over who should be nominated”: T.R. Goldman has this article (free access) in this week’s issue of Legal Times.

“Bush Picks Official at Justice for D.C. Circuit”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “President Bush nominated a senior Justice Department official yesterday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. If confirmed by the Senate, Peter D. Keisler would fill the seat vacated last year when John G. Roberts Jr. was appointed chief justice of the United States.”

My earlier coverage from last night appears at this link.

“Few big rulings as justices felt out new roles; Addition of two members, rising influence of a third left court in caution mode”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

Yapping about Yap: The Los Angeles Times today contains a front page article headlined “The Coin of This Realm Is Gargantuan; On the tiny Pacific islands of Yap, stone wheels bigger than tractor tires are still used as money; The tradition-bound leaders hope to buy some time.”

According to the article, “‘We are trying to hold on to things the way they used to be,’ said FSM Supreme Court Justice Martin Yinug, who attended college and law school in the United States. ‘This is the only way we know how to survive. If we change too quickly, we will be lost.'”

Additional yapping about Yap’s monetary system can be accessed in this document from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (via “Economist’s View“).

“Ariz. insanity-defense statute upheld”: This article appears today in The Arizona Republic.

The Arizona Daily Star reports today that “Justices uphold Ariz.’s limits on insanity defense.”

Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times reports that “Court Upholds Arizona Limits Imposed on Insanity Defense.”

The Washington Post reports that “Restriction of Insanity Defense Affirmed; Justices Rule That Arizona Law Allowed Fair Trial to Teenager in Murder Case.”

Get your overview: The Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court Institute issued this interesting document yesterday (via “SCOTUSblog“).

And the organization People For the American Way yesterday issued a press release entitled “Supreme Court Shifts Right, Kennedy Moderates Impact of Roberts & Alito; Next Year’s Cases Could Signal Acceleration of Ultraconservative Trend.”

“The Hidden Power: The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror.” Jane Mayer has this article in the July 3, 2006 issue of The New Yorker.