“U.S. Supreme Court to weigh Arizona’s tax credit law”: The Arizona Republic contains this article today.

And in today’s edition of The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer reports that “Private-school money to get high-court look.”

“D.C. police filmed statement by defendant charged in coverup of lawyer’s killing”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “No Sign of Burglary, Officer Testifies in Wone Case.”

“Supreme Court rules against NFL in antitrust case; The 9-0 ruling declares the teams are individual businesses and not a ‘single entity’ and leaves owners open to be sued if they conspire to restrict competition in the sale of merchandise”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an article headlined “Court denies NFL antitrust exemption; Justices: Teams are separate enterprises.”

The New York Times reports that “N.F.L. Fails in Its Request for Antitrust Immunity.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Makes NFL Play Defense; Justices’ 9-0 Ruling Says League Isn’t Entitled to a Blanket Antitrust Exemption.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court rules against NFL in merchandising antitrust case; The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously that the NFL is not a single entity, but 32 different franchises, reversing an appeals court decision.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Broadsides NFL in Antitrust Case; The National Football League ‘snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,’ according to one antitrust expert.”

From NPR, yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Rules Against NFL In Antitrust Case” featuring Nina Totenberg. And today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Rules Against NFL In Antitrust Case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “No antitrust ‘Trojan horse.’”

“High Court Smooths Path to Plaintiff Fees in Disability Cases”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

“A B-Minus? The Shock! The Horror!” Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “She went on to be the dean of Harvard Law School, the solicitor general of the United States, and now a nominee to the Supreme Court. But in the fall of 1983, Elena Kagan was just another first-year law student at Harvard.” The newspaper has posted the nominee’s law school report card at this link.

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “White House Takes Over Court Nominee’s Prep.”

“U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear jailed L.A. lawyer’s contempt of court case; Richard Fine, 70, has been in solitary confinement since March 2009, taking his case all the way to the top court; He says he will continue to fight”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Black Firefighters’ Claim Was Timely, Justices Say”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices say employers may not use discriminatory testing practices.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court backs black applicants in firefighter discrimination suit; Chicago could be liable for as much as $100 million in damages in the case in which minority candidates passed a fire department exam but were not hired.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of blacks for Chicago firefighter jobs; Applicants did not wait too long to sue the city over a 1995 hiring test that they deemed discriminatory, court finds.”

The Chicago Sun-Times contains articles headlined “Supreme Court ruling could force Chicago to hire bypassed black firefighter candidates” and “Man gets second chance to try to fulfill firefighter dream.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court rules for African-Americans in firefighter hiring case; Some 6,000 African-American applicants for jobs with the Chicago Fire Department can proceed with a discrimination lawsuit over the firefighter hiring test, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.”

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “Supreme Court Says Bias Case Over Firefighter Hiring Can Move Forward.”

“GOP senator: Kagan hearings being pushed too soon.” The Associated Press has this report.

“High Court to Weigh Arizona Tuition Tax Credits”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Big New Establishment Clause Case, on Religious Groups’ Participating in Evenhanded Government Funding Programs.”

“Bagram ruling no blank check for Obama”: Josh Gerstein has this post at his “Under the Radar” blog at Politico.com.

“The Big Ban Theory: Does Elena Kagan want to ban books? No, and she might even be a free-speech zealot.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Access online today’s opinions in argued cases and Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued opinions in six argued cases.

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Marcus, No. 08-1341. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the ruling. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 09-448. Justice Stevens joined the opinion of the Court in part and issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. O’Brien, No. 08-1569. Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion. And Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

4. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Lewis v. Chicago, No. 08-974. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

5. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, No. 08-661. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

6. Finally, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, No. 08-6261. The Chief Justice issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Sotomayor also issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the order at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

The Court today also vacated and remanded without oral argument in Jefferson v. Upton, No. 09-8852. Justice Scalia issued a dissenting opinion in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the per curiam ruling at this link.

You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in five cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “NFL may face legal penalty; No total antitrust immunity.”

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court: NFL is 32 teams, not single business“; “Court says black firefighter lawsuit can proceed“; “Court reinstates sex trafficking conviction“; “High court to hear Arizona school case“; “Supreme Court to review Texan’s death row case“; and “High court rejects Microsoft patent appeal.”

“Wearing his heart on his skin, tattoo parlor owner seeks 1st Amendment protection; Banned from opening a store in Hermosa Beach, he goes to federal court to get some respect for his art”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Lawmakers divided on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ as votes near”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Knife looms large in Robert Wone trial”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Elena Kagan goes on Supreme Court confirmation offensive in drab D.C. clothes”: Robin Givhan has this article today in The Washington Post.

“Elena Kagan’s writings suggest judge’s proper role”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Take Justice Off the Ballot”: Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Detainees Barred From Access to U.S. Courts”: Charlie Savage has this front page article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Christi Parsons have an article headlined “Court: No habeas rights for prisoners in Afghanistan; Obama wins what Bush sought: the right to hold suspects without judicial oversight at the Bagram air base.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined “Court: Bagram prisoners don’t have Guantanamo habeas rights.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Detainees held by US in Afghanistan can’t contest custody, court finds; Friday’s ruling is a victory for the US government, which seeks to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base; Detainees’ lawyers had argued for judicial oversight.”

Evan Perez of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Rules Against Detainees at Bagram.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Marcia Coyle has a post titled “Bagram Detainees Have No Habeas Rights.”

“Medical Examiner Testifies About Knife in Wone Case”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Kagan’s Writings Back Wider Executive Powers”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Boston Globe, columnist Renee Loth has an op-ed entitled “Kagan and the power elite.”

And yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post contained an op-ed by Robert Merrill entitled “A veteran’s Harvard ally: Elena Kagan” and an op-ed by David N. Bossie entitled “Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?”

“Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains a front page article by A.G. Sulzberger that begins, “In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls ‘the unnecessary cruelty of the law.’ His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.”

“Appeals court rules against Bagram detainees”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “No habeas rights at Bagram; Limit on detainees’ challenges.”

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

“A Supreme Difference”: In the June 10, 2010 issue of The New York Review of Books, Anthony Lewis has this review of the books “American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia” by Joan Biskupic and “John Paul Stevens: An Independent Life” by Bill Barnhart and Gene Schlickman.

“Trove or Trouble? 168,000 Pages of Kagan.” Laura Meckler has this post at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

“Senator Specter and the Law”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Mojave Cross replica is removed after mysteriously appearing overnight”: The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California contains this article today.

The San Bernardino Sun reports today that “Mojave cross mysteriously replaced.”

The Desert Dispatch of Barstow, California reports that “New cross appears at Mojave Preserve — but is then removed.”

The Washington Times reports that “Park cross replaced in memorial mystery.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Replica cross in Mojave Desert comes down.”

“Health care law’s enemies have no ally in Constitution”: Law professor Charles Fried has this op-ed today in The Boston Globe.

“Lawyer plays dual role in court deal; Chief justice said he did not know adviser was also a developer in $200 million project”: This front page article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Infomercial pitchman spared 30 days in prison”: The Chicago Tribune has this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “Court spares infomercial pitchman from jail.”

And Reuters has a report headlined “No jail, contempt for TV pitchman Trudeau.”

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

“Kagan known for openness, assertiveness at Harvard”: The Associated Press has this report, along with an article headlined “Scalia says he, Breyer and Kagan are friends.”

“Shaping of Judiciary Key Part of Specter’s Legacy; Specter is credited with helping to pioneer a merit selection panel system for Pennsylvania-based judges that has gone on to be emulated in many other states”: Shannon P. Duffy has this article today in The Legal Intelligencer.

“President Obama Names Susan L. Carney to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit”: The White House issued this news release today.

The Associated Press reports that “Obama nominates Yale’s Carney to federal court.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “Yale Lawyer Picked for 2nd Circuit.”

“Kagan Critiqued Bush v. Gore Case”: Nathan Koppel has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Senate panel asks Clinton library to turn over documents on Elena Kagan; The Judiciary Committee asks for letters, memos, e-mails and more, before hearings on the Supreme Court nominee begin June 28; A library official says meeting the deadline would be ‘very difficult.’”

David Ingram of The National Law Journal reports that “Kagan Had Strong Financial Year in 2009.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “But Enough About Me: What Do You Think of Me? Can we please stop talking about Supreme Court nominees like they are real people?”

“Appeals court rejects NFL ticket-holder’s suit”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports that “3rd Circuit Spikes Football Fans’ Signal Videotaping Suit.”