“The inherent conflict for lawyers who oppose Supreme Court review”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report about an article written by Fourth Circuit judicial law clerk Aaron Tang titled “The Ethics of Opposing Certiorari Before the Supreme Court.”

“Remarks made at Penn Law by federal judge are under review; A complaint was lodged against Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith Jones for judicial misconduct”: The Daily Pennsylvanian has this report.

“Key judge’s take on clean-power mandates sparks legal debate”: Hannah Northey and Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire have an article that begins, “An influential federal judge splashed fuel last week on an already-raging argument over states’ clean energy mandates in a ruling that questioned the constitutionality of Michigan’s renewable portfolio standard.”

“Who Will Care For ‘Baby Veronica’?” This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Tell Me More.”

“Going Courtless: The NSA searches its mass database of phone records without real judicial oversight; That’s unacceptable.” William Saletan has this essay online at Slate.

“Scalia criticizes ‘moralist’ judges”: The Citizen-Times of Asheville, North Carolina has this news update.

“We All Lose When the Supreme Court Procrastinates; Court-watchers thought one of the big decisions would come down Thursday; Instead, almost all the high-profile ones will be handed down next week”: Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Another Liberal Writer Realizes Clarence Thomas Is Actually a Principled Legal Conservative”: Damon W. Root has this post today at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog.

“U.S. court upholds radio host’s conviction for threats to judges”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

My earlier coverage of today’s Second Circuit ruling appears in the post immediately below.

“On June 2, 2009, Harold Turner published a blog post declaring that three Seventh Circuit judges deserved to die for their recent decision that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states”: So begins the majority opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today in United States v. Turner.

The final paragraph of the majority opinion’s introduction states:

A jury convicted Turner of threatening to assault or murder Judges Frank Easterbrook, William Bauer, and Richard Posner with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with them in the performance of their duties or to retaliate against them on account of their performance of official duties. This appeal presents several issues for our review, including whether the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence of a true threat of violence. We hold that the evidence was sufficient, that the jury was properly instructed regarding a ‘true threat,’ and that Turner was not prejudiced by any error. We affirm.

Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote the majority opinion, in which U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y.), sitting by designation, joined.

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler issued a dissenting opinion, which begins:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, because I find that, as a matter of law, Turner’s speech was not a true threat under 18 U.S.C. sec. 115(a)(1)(B) and the First Amendment.

Although these circumstances — a three-judge panel’s ruling in which two active circuit judges disagree and the deciding vote is provided by a district judge sitting by designation — ordinarily suggest a good likelihood of rehearing en banc, the fact that this appeal is pending in the Second Circuit (which very rarely grants rehearing en banc) and involves what could be viewed as a distasteful subject matter for judges (i.e., death threats against them) could combine to doom any chance at rehearing en banc in this case.

“At U.S. high court, high anxiety over big cases”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this news analysis.

And online at The Daily Beast, law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has an essay titled “What’s Taking the Supreme Court So Long? The biggest cases are still to come — and we should be celebrating this drawn-out finale.”

“Modified Categorical Imperative”: Will Baude has this post today at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Top Court Backs Free Speech for Grant Recipients”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Anti-prostitution pledge in AIDS law violates free speech; A 2003 US law providing funding to fight AIDS required recipients to explicitly oppose prostitution; The Supreme Court, by a 6-2 margin, rejected the pledge of ‘allegiance to the government’s policy.'”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court: Provision In AIDS Law Violates Free Speech.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: Can the government use money to control what private groups say?”

And online at The Nation, law professor David Cole has an essay titled “Supreme Court Delivers a Win for First Amendment Rights.”

“‘Aaron’s Law’ Would Help Reform Our Awful Computer Crime Laws. Will Congress Pass It?” Justin Peters has this blog post online at Slate.

“The Death Penalty’s Slow But Seemingly Sure Decline”: NPR has this report today.

“The judges who preside over America’s secret court”: John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke of Reuters have a report that begins, “Twelve of the 14 judges who have served this year on the most secret court in America are Republicans and half are former prosecutors.”

“Big business the winner in U.S. Supreme Court class action cases”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Planned Parenthood files suit against state law; Anti-abortion bill passed this session has been called nation’s most restrictive”: Andy Marso of The Topeka Capital-Journal has this news update.

Mark Morris of The Kansas City Star has a news update headlined “Lawsuit challenges new Kansas abortion law.”

The Associated Press reports that “Planned Parenthood sues over new Kan. abortion law.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Planned Parenthood Sues Kansas Over Abortion Speech Law.”

“Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review.” Online at Slate, you can now access the first two entries in this “Breakfast Table” conversation.

Emily Bazelon has a post titled “Wow, what a term.”

And law professor Eric Posner has a post titled “Are the court’s conservatives dividing?”

Access online the contents of the June 2013 issue of the Harvard Law Review: Via this link.

“What hope remains for consumers, employees after SCOTUS Amex ruling?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“Justice Samuel Alito dishes on the Supreme Court in Dallas speech”: The Dallas Morning News has this update. The newspaper has also posted online a series of photos titled “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito fires first pitch, hangs out in dugout before Rangers battle A’s.”

And MLB.com offers this video coverage of last night’s Texas Rangers ceremonial first pitch.

“A Right to Be Silent About Prostitution?” Amy Davidson has this blog post online at The New Yorker.

“Why One of America’s Most Powerful Lawyers is a Twitter Freak”: Dimitra Kessenides of Bloomberg News has a report/interview that begins, “As a partner at the Los Angeles-based law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and co-head of the firm’s appellate and constitutional law practice group, Theodore Boutrous doesn’t have a lot of spare time.”

You can access Ted’s Twitter account at this link. He follows “How Appealing” on Twitter, and you can too.

“Federal judges order Brown to begin releasing inmates immediately”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update. The newspaper has posted the three-judge court’s ruling issued today at this link.

Update: In other coverage, Sam Stanton and Denny Walsh of The Sacramento Bee has a news update headlined “Judges order California to immediately release prisoners.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Judges: Brown must fully comply with prison order.”

“Roberts’s Liberal Ruling Will Protect Conservatives”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“It’s ‘make-or-break day’ for EPA’s cross-state rule, E15 waiver”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court will meet today to consider whether to review two U.S. EPA programs: regulations for air pollution that drifts across state lines and its approval of increased ethanol in gasoline.”

“Oregon Supreme Court denies death row inmate Gary Haugen’s bid for execution”: The Oregonian has this news update reporting on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Oregon issued today.

And in other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Oregon court upholds governor’s execution delay.”

“Justices Back Use of Arbitration Over Class Actions”: Binyamin Appelbaum of The New York Times has this news update.

“Appeals court reinstates USS Cole bombing lawsuit”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit filed by the families of 17 sailors killed in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.”

When today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit becomes available online, I will link to it. [Update: The Fourth Circuit’s ruling can be accessed here.]

“Big Banks Don’t Owe Madoff Estate $30 Billion, Court Says”: Bloomberg News has this report.

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Madoff trustee loses appeal over claims against banks.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Madoff victims can’t sue big banks, court rules.”

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

“Court Finds AIDS Program’s Rules Violate Free Speech”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court says law can’t dictate anti-AIDS groups’ speech.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court strikes down funding law on sex trafficking.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Court rules against government in HIV/AIDS funding case; The government cannot fund only those groups that take a pledge against prostitution and sex trafficking, a divided Supreme Court rules.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has an article headlined “SCOTUS: Aid groups not required to oppose prostitution.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Easing the leash on speech.”

“Noncuratlex.com Breaking News: United States Supreme Court Reveals Reason for Delay in Issuance of Fisher Opinion.” Law professor Kyle Graham has this post today at his blog, “noncuratlex.com.”

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued three decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Descamps v. United States, No. 11-9540. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No.12-133. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. And Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor was recused from this case. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., No. 12-10. Justices Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kagan was recused from this case. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court rules for Amex in dispute with merchants“; “High court strikes down anti-prostitution pledge“; and “Court: Man shouldn’t have gotten harsher penalty.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “American Express Wins as U.S. Supreme Court Backs Arbitration” and “Anti-Prostitution Rule Violates Speech Rights, High Court Rules.”

And Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Longstreth of Reuters report that “Supreme Court rules for American Express in class action case.” In addition, Hurley has a report headlined “U.S. justices strike down AIDS funding law.”

“You Don’t Have the Right to Remain Silent: The Supreme Court’s terrible — and dangerous — ruling this week on the Fifth Amendment.” Law professor Brandon L. Garrett has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.