“Maybe the Supreme Court Isn’t as Pro-Gun as We Thought; Justice Kennedy rejects an audacious new NRA argument”: Law professor Adam Winkler has this essay online at The New Republic.

And Yishai Schwartz has an essay titled “The Separation of Church and State Is Still Alive — for Children, Anyway; Prayer may be permitted in legislatures, but schools are still protected zones.”

“Argentina Defiant Against Supreme Court on Bond Payments”: The New York Times has this report.

“3 inmates set to die; previous execution botched”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Reuters reports that “Georgia inmate could be first to die since botched Oklahoma execution.”

“Senate Judiciary to Consider Voting Rights Amendment”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“N.C. lawmakers bid to bolster Camp Lejeune cases in wake of ruling”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has an article that begins, “The North Carolina Legislature may approve legislation as soon as today that would nullify a recent Supreme Court ruling’s effect on lawsuits brought by Marines seeking damages for exposure to contaminated water while stationed at a U.S. base.”

“What 13 States Are Not Telling You About How They Kill People: Protected by secrecy laws, some states with the most active death chambers are refusing to disclose important elements of how inmates are killed by lethal injection.” Tasneem Nashrulla of BuzzFeed has this report.

And in related news, today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article headlined “U.S. Judge Denies Stay of Execution in Georgia.”

“Supreme Court Rejects Argentina’s Debt Appeal”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court to consider online-threats case.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court lets stand a ban on using churches for graduations.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “High court nixes holding school graduation in church.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Holdout Creditors in Argentina Debt Case; In Separate Action, High Court Gives Holdout Creditor Access to Records on Argentina’s Assets” and “U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Raj Rajaratnam Appeal; Court Declines to Consider Challenge of Galleon Group Founder’s 2011 Conviction for Insider Trading.”

Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has an article headlined “Supreme Court agrees to hear Facebook rapper’s appeal; Justices agree to hear Lower Saucon man’s appeal in online threats case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Can a school hold graduation in a church? Supreme Court declines case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “No relief for Argentina on debt.”

“Conservatives, after dismantling public financing system, set sights on N.C. judiciary”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“Fourth case reopened after Center uncovers judicial conflict of interest; New panel of judges reaches same conclusion in Maryland foreclosure case”: The Center for Public Integrity has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has scrapped a 2010 foreclosure ruling in favor of Wells Fargo Bank after a Center for Public Integrity investigation revealed that one of the three judges who participated in the decision owned stock in the banking giant.”

“NJ Senate panel approves Rabner, Solomon for Supreme Court”: Salvador Rizzo has this front page article in today’s edition of The Newark Star-Ledger.

“Ex Ben-Gal Sarah Jones loses defamation suit”: This article appears today in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court overturns ex-NFL cheerleader’s defamation award.”

And Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has a report headlined “Appeals court throws out $340,000 online libel ruling; CDA Section 230 prevents ‘the speech-chilling threat of the heckler’s veto.'”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Supreme Court Rules Against ‘Straw’ Purchases of Guns”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Court agrees with ban on ‘straw purchases’ of guns.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds key element in federal gun laws.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has articles headlined “Supreme Court Upholds Federal Ban on ‘Straw’ Purchases of Guns; In 5-4 Vote, Justices Rule Firearms Can’t Be Purchased for Others” and “Supreme Court Ruling Revives Challenge to Ban on False Political Speech; Lower Court to Consider Whether Ohio False-Statements Law Violates First Amendment.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has articles headlined “Supreme Court rules against ‘straw purchasers’ of guns” and “Justices allow challenge to law banning political lies.”

The Washington Times has articles headlined “Supreme Court rules for stricter scrutiny of gun purchases” and “Supreme Court: Challenge to campaign ‘lying’ law can go ahead; Anti-abortion group said Ohio statute threatened free speech.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an article headlined “Supreme Court: COAST can challenge false claims ban.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Split Supreme Court shoots down ‘straw’ gun purchases” and “Supreme Court: Anti-abortion group can challenge ‘false statement’ law.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Zoe Tillman and Marcia Coyle have a post titled “Supreme Court Affirms ‘Straw Purchase’ Gun Conviction.” And Tony Mauro has a post titled “High Court Permits Challenge to Ohio Law Banning Campaign Lies.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has posts titled “Opinion analysis: No stand-in gun buyers allowed” and “Opinion analysis: False politicking law open to challenge.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “‘Straw’ purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates” and “Supreme Court sides with anti-abortion group on political ads.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules Against Gun ‘Straw Purchases.’”

“Are Facebook Threats Real? The Supreme Court will soon decide.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

In commentary from law professor Noah Feldman: Online today at Bloomberg View, he has essays titled “So You Can’t Lie When You Buy a Gun” and “Bond Vultures’ Bet Against Argentina Pays Off.”

“Considering the legal landscape set forth above, we conclude the district court erred in creating a parent-child [testimonial] privilege in this case.” So held a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in a ruling issued today.

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Ashby Jones has a post titled “Appeals Court Shoots Down Son’s Refusal to Testify Against Dad.”

“Argentina: Won’t submit to ‘extortion’ on debt.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “President Cristina Fernandez says Argentina won’t submit to what she calls extortion or allow its economy to be ruined after losing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on defaulted debt.”

“Appeals court rules California initiative sponsors can stay anonymous”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “Ninth U.S. Circuit Court rules against sponsor IDs on ballot initiatives.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued an opinion.

“Federal prosecutor to 9/11 lawyers in Guantanamo court: Trust me, there’s no mole on your teams; An assistant U.S. attorney said there’s no cause for concern over conflict of interest or compromised legal work because of the FBI’s questioning, which has concluded.” Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Appeals court reverses decision in local terrorism prosecution”: The Chicago Tribune has this news update.

And The Chicago Sun-Times has a news update headlined “Appeals court reverses decision in Chicago terrorism case.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.

Update: In other coverage, Bloomberg News reports that “Terror Suspect’s Lawyer Barred From Secret U.S. Filing.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court reverses key ruling on secret-court records.”

“Ninth Circuit Convenes for Investiture of Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today.

According to the release, “At age 41, Judge Friedland ranks fourth among the youngest appointees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Appeals court overturns surveillance disclosure order”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post that begins, “A federal appeals court has overturned a district court judge’s landmark order requiring the government to show defense lawyers foreign-intelligence-related surveillance on how a terrorism investigation developed.”

Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued today’s opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. And Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner issued a lengthy concurring opinion.

“Hobby Lobby aims for Obamacare win, Christian nation”: Stephanie Simon has this report today at Politico.com.

“U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Threats on Social Media”: Mark Walsh has this post today at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear case on Facebook threats.”

And Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Internet Free-Speech Case; Justices to Consider Whether Convicted Man’s Facebook Posts Were Threats or Free Speech.”

Judge Posner delivers a loss for the Conan Doyle Estate in a copyright-related appeal: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote the opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

Update: In early coverage, at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Conan Doyle Estate Loses Appeal Over ‘Sherlock Holmes’ Rights; 7th Circuit judge Richard Posner rejects the distinction between ‘complex’ and ‘flat’ characters if it means ‘nearly perpetual copyright.’”

“Judges With Daughters More Often Rule in Favor of Women’s Rights”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

The paper that is the subject of Liptak’s article is titled “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?”

Earlier coverage of the paper appeared on the May 28. 2014 broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” in a segment titled “Research: Children Of Judges May Influence Court Decisions.”

“North Carolina Judge Rules that Alienation of Affections Law is Unconstitutional”: “Michael Smith’s Law Blog” has this post today.

“A Second Chance for the Obama Administration on ‘Battlefield’ Contractor Liability”: Steve Vladeck has this post today at the “Just Security” blog.

“Over a Dissent, Justices Decline Appeal on Public School Graduation at Church”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“14 cases remain for Supreme Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“The Outside Game of Justice Scalia, a Loner With Clout: A new biography of Antonin Scalia argues that his bellicose conservatism has alienated his fellow justices and rendered him ineffective; Think again.” Online today at The Daily Beast, law professor David Fontana has this review of Bruce Allen Murphy‘s new book, “Scalia: A Court of One.”

“Sarah Jones * * * was the unwelcome subject of several posts anonymously uploaded to www.TheDirty.com, a popular website”: So states a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today in Sarah Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment.

According to the unanimous ruling:

Under the [Communications Decency Act], Richie and Dirty World were neither the creators nor the developers of the challenged defamatory content that was published on the website. Jones’s tort claims are grounded on the statements of another content provider yet seek to impose liability on Dirty World and Richie as if they were the publishers or speakers of those statements. Section 230(c)(1) therefore bars Jones’s claims. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in favor of Jones and reverse the district court’s denial of Dirty World’s and Richie’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in their favor.

My earlier coverage of the oral argument of this appeal can be accessed via this link.

Update: In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Gossip site wins appeal of cheerleader’s lawsuit.”

And at “Techdirt,” Mike Masnick has a post titled “Phew: Appeals Court Says Having ‘Dirt’ In Your Domain Name Doesn’t Remove Safe Harbor Protections.”

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

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Abramski v. United States, No. 12-1493. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which 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. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital Ltd., No. 12-842. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the decision. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court OKs challenge to Ohio ban on campaign lies“; “Argentina dealt double blow by justices over debt“; and “Supreme Court rules on ‘straw purchaser’ law.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted its Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in two new cases. The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General in what appear to be two related cases.

In addition, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, from the denial of certiorari in Elmbrook Sch. Dist. v. Doe, No. 12-755.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court will hear appeal over illegal threats“; “Court will consider extra pay for mortgage brokers“; “High court rejects Argentina’s appeal over debt“; “Justices reject appeal over graduations in church“; “High court rejects insider trader’s appeal“; and “High court rejects Scottie Pippen defamation case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Banks Get New Review on Credit Union Agency’s Lawsuit“; “High Court Won’t Back Public School’s Church Graduations“; “Argentina Rejected by U.S. High Court on Defaulted Bonds“; and “Rajaratnam Rejected by High Court on Trading Conviction.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court to hear appeal of conviction for online threats“; “U.S. Supreme Court to hear mortgage loan officers’ pay case“; “U.S. top court rejects Argentina appeal in bond fight“; and “U.S. top court declines to hear Rajaratnam appeal.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “On religion issues, children are still different.”

“The Supreme Court Will Always Split 5-4”: Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“GPS tracking case has left unsettled questions”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A 2-year-old Supreme Court decision has caused more confusion than clarity on how police may track the whereabouts of criminal suspects, illustrating how hard it is for the slow-moving judicial system to keep up with the light speed of technology.”