“High court poised to decide birth-control dispute”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Mass. abortion clinic buffer zones ruled illegal”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Boston Globe, along with a front page article headlined “No finger-pointing at AG Martha Coakley over ruling.”

The Boston Herald reports that “Abortion ruling has officials scrambling.”

The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts has articles headlined “Abortion protesters thrilled after Supreme Court strikes down clinic ‘buffer zones’“; “Anti-abortion plaintiff Eleanor McCullen says clinic protests are about ‘surrounding women with love’“; and “Reproductive rights activist Bill Baird: Supreme Court decision on abortion clinic buffer ‘horrendous day’ for women’s rights.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak and John Schwartz have a front page article headlined “Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinic.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zones.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court rejects abortion clinic buffer zone in nuanced ruling.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zone.”

Stephanie Haven of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Abortion clinic buffer zone violates free speech, Supreme Court says.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court, 9-0, nixes 35-foot ‘buffer zone’ at abortion clinic.”

Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times reports that “Unanimous court strikes down abortion ‘buffer’ for protesters.”

Greg Stohr and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News report that “Abortion-Clinic Buffer Zone Struck Down by Top U.S. Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court curbs state limits on abortion clinic protests.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: A broader right to oppose abortion.”

“A Prodigious Beginning, Then an Early Ending: ‘The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz.'” Jeannette Catsoulis has this movie review in today’s edition of The New York Times. The newspaper has designated the movie a “NYT Critics’ Pick.”

“New York’s Ban on Big Sodas Is Rejected by Final Court”: This article appears in today’s edition of The New York Times reporting on a ruling that the New York State Court of Appeals issued yesterday.

And in other coverage, The New York Daily News reports that “Big sugary sodas win again! N.Y. Court of Appeals rules city had no right to restrict soda sizes.”

“The Supreme Court Was Right to Allow Anti-Abortion Protests”: Law professor Laurence H. Tribe has this essay online at The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court’s Powerful New Consensus”: Law professor Neal K. Katyal has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Murphy’s Law”: In the July 7, 2014 issue of National Review, Ed Whelan has this review of Bruce Allen Murphy‘s new book, “Scalia: A Court of One.”

“The Fourth Amendment Goes Digital: The Supreme Courts shows it understands how cellphones tip the privacy balance.” Ian MacDougall has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

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

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in NLRB v. Canning, No. 12-1281. And Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168. Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Thomas joined. And Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court limits president’s appointments power” and “High court voids abortion clinic protest-free zone.”

“Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones; Supreme Court Says Phones Can’t Be Searched Without a Warrant”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times. And John Schwartz will have an article headlined “Cellphone Ruling Could Alter Police Methods, Experts Say.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court says police must get warrants for most cellphone searches.” And Craig Timberg has an article headlined “Supreme Court cellphone ruling hints at broader curbs on surveillance.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rules police cannot search smartphones without warrant.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Supreme Court: Police Need Warrants to Search Cellphone Data; Unanimous Supreme Court Says Privacy Interests Outweigh Police Convenience.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court limits police searches of cellphones.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Police need warrants to search smartphones, Supreme Court rules.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “US Supreme Court to police: To search a cell phone, ‘get a warrant.’”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws; Major ruling updates privacy laws for 21st century.”

At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein and Tal Kopan report that “SCOTUS rules warrants needed for cellphone search.” In addition, Gerstein has an article headlined “SCOTUS cellphone ruling resonates in NSA fight.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court’s milestone ruling protects cellphone privacy.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Police Need Warrant to Search Cell Phones, Top Court Says.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “High Court Ruling On Search Warrants Is Broader Than Cellphones.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Justices Endorse Privacy in Cellphone Search Cases.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Broad cloak of privacy for cellphones.”

“Oklahoma death row inmates seek to halt executions”: The Associated Press has this report.

“The Supreme Court Justices Have Cellphones, Too; The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Cellphone Privacy”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

Access online this year’s installment of Slate’s “Supreme Court Breakfast Table”: Dahlia Lithwick started the discussion this morning with a post titled “Is this the most pro-First Amendment court ever?”

Walter Dellinger followed with a post titled “A retirement decision is not a judicial act.”

Next, Laurence H. Tribe has a post titled “Closing off one avenue of civil rights relief after another.”

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner’s first post in the discussion is titled “Does Chief Justice John Roberts show a certain casualness about the truth?”

Judge Posner’s son, Eric Posner, has a post titled “How exactly does this court know how significant the privacy interest is?”

Dahlia Lithwick’s second post is titled “In the cellphone cases, the justices prove they are not Luddites.”

Walter Dellinger’s second post is titled “The court may no longer be the head cheerleader for the war on drugs.”

And Emily Bazelon’s first post, which is currently the most recent of all the posts, is titled “Scalia and Breyer battle it out to see who is the least clueless grandpa.”

“10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage; State of Utah will ruling appeal to U.S. Supreme Court”: The Salt Lake Tribune has this news update.

The Deseret News has an update headlined “Federal appeals court rules against Utah’s same-sex marriage ban.”

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court.”

Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has a news update headlined “10th Circuit Court Says States Can’t Ban Gay Marriage.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: States can’t ban gay marriage.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Utah Gay-Marriage Ban Rejected in Appeals Court First.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. courts back gay marriage in Utah, Indiana.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Utah ban on same-sex marriage nullified.”

You can access today’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.

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

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Breyer also delivered the opinion of the Court in American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3 & 4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Riley v. California, No.13-132, and United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral arguments here and here, respectively.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justice limit cellphone searches after arrests“; “Justices rule for broadcasters in fight with Aereo” and “Court sides with employees in retirement fund case.”

“U.S. high court bucks pro-business trend this term”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Why The Supreme Court’s Decision in Halliburton Is Bad News For Investors And The Public”: Andrew J. Pincus has this post at Mayer Brown’s “Class Defense” blog.

“For same-sex marriage pioneer, a very busy year”: Richard Wolf has this front page article in today’s edition of USA Today.

“Federal court rules U.S. Airways pilots might have right to pursue claims”: Howard Fischer of The East Valley Tribune has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Rallies, events mark one year after Supreme Court’s voting rights decision in Shelby County case”: AL.com has this report today.

“Man alleging Sluggerrr hurt his eye with a hot dog gets another chance with Royals lawsuit”: Tony Rizzo of The Kansas City Star has a news update that begins, “A man allegedly injured by a hot dog tossed at a 2009 Royals game will get another chance to pursue his lawsuit against the team, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.”

The Kansas City Business Journal has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Flying hot dogs not ‘inherent risk’ of Royals games.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Missouri Supreme Court: Fan hit in eye by hot dog from Royals mascot can have new trial.”

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

“Bar asks state Supreme Court to suspend lawyer over microchip claim”: The Tampa Bay Times has a news update that begins, “The Florida Bar on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to suspend a lawyer who asserts that others hurt and control her through a microchip illegally implanted in her brain.”

“Awaiting Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, public favors contraception mandate”: Religion News Service has this report.

“Poison Pill Hidden in the EPA Ruling”: Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“EPA’s Winning Streak Extended as High Court Backs Greenhouse Permits”: Mark Drajem and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News have this report today.

“Supreme Court Gives Broad Reach to Federal Bank-Fraud Law; High Court Rules Bank-Fraud Law Can Punish Check Fraud Aimed at Nonbank Victims”: Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall have this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Major gay rights ruling left intact”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “U.S. court refuses to undo gay rights ruling in pharma case.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court rejects appeal of gay jury selection case.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Tough test in gay rights cases finalized.”

And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Potential Gay Jurors May Not be Barred.”

You can access at this link today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, from which three judges noted their dissent.

“U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to DUI machines”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Q&A: U.S. top court upholds basics of Basic v. Levinson decision.” Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court Rifts Nothing New, Law Scholar Says”: Andrew Harris of Bloomberg News has this report.

“EPA’s first carbon regs nearly unscathed after years of litigation”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has an article that begins, “In announcing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday on U.S. EPA’s permitting for greenhouse gases, Justice Antonin Scalia — no friend of EPA — gave the agency a pat on the back.”

“Senate reaffirms decision to deny press pass to Scotusblog; Website dedicated to covering the US supreme court is denied press pass on conflict-of-interest grounds”: The Guardian (UK) has this report.

And at Roll Call, Hannah Hess has a blog post titled “SCOTUSBlog Wants Senate Rules Committee to Interpret ‘Editorial Independence.’”

In posts of interest from Eriq Gardner at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter: A post titled “George Clinton Can’t Prevent Sound Recordings From Being Sold; Record labels might also have reason to cheer an opinion delivered on Monday by a federal appeals court” reports on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

And a separate post today is titled “Hollywood Guilds Want Supreme Court to Hear Marvel Characters Dispute; The Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of America and the Writers Guild of America are rallying behind efforts by the heirs of Jack Kirby to terminate rights to Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four and the Avengers.”

“New Hurdle In Investors’ Class Actions”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times. And at the newspaper’s “DealBook” blog, Steven M. Davidoff has a post titled “Supreme Court Tinkering With Securities Class Actions.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules in Halliburton securities fraud case.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Gives Companies More Room to Challenge Class Actions; Supreme Court Strikes Middle Ground on Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Case Involving Halliburton.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices side with investors in securities fraud case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Shareholder Class-Action Suits Curbed by U.S. High Court.”

Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters report that “U.S. top court adds limit to securities class actions.”

Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight is titled “SCOTUS Halliburton ruling could backfire for securities defendants.”

At Bloomberg View, Matt Levine has an essay titled “There Will Always Be Stock-Drop Lawsuits.”

And at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Supreme Court Leaves Fraud On Market Intact, Makes Life A Bit Harder For Securities Plaintiffs.”

In the July 2014 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Joel Cohen has “An interview with Judge Richard A. Posner.” Perhaps coincidentally, the July 2014 issue appears not to contain any new installment of Bryan A. Garner’s “On Words” column.

Steven Seidenberg has an article headlined “Federal Circuit gets reined in over patent fees in infringement suits.”

David L. Hudson Jr. has an article headlined “When should bloggers count as journalists in defamation suits?”

And Abby Seiff has the issue’s cover story headlined “How countries are successfully using the law to get looted cultural treasures back.”