“No Immunity for Cops Who Raided Little Girl’s Party”: Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Selling stuff outside Wrigley? Court says no — even to the Cubs.” Crain’s Chicago Business has this report on an opinion that Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Can “an order by a district court imposing a sanction on a lawyer for misconduct in a case * * * ever be appealed if the sanction lacks a monetary component”? Yesterday, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued this interesting opinion answering that question in the affirmative.

“Poor Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).” A concurring opinion that Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III issued today begins:

Poor Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). It has fallen on hard times. A string of recent tragic street encounters involving the police has brought the stop-and-frisk procedure authorized in Terry under fire. But that is nothing new.

You can access the complete ruling at this link.

“Baylor not commenting on reports of President Kenneth Starr’s firing”: Cindy Boren of The Washington Post has this report.

And The Waco Tribune-Herald reports that “Baylor regent chairman says Starr still president, more information to come soon.”

“Why the Law Failed to Punish Wrongdoers in the Financial Crisis”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Sore Losers: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are still trying to keep juvenile offenders behind bars for life.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Federal court questions whether Texas voter-ID law can offer accommodations”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

You can access the audio of today’s en banc oral argument of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit via this link (63.2 MB mp3 audio file).

“Opening Doors: North Carolina’s bathroom bill is reminiscent of the days of de-facto discrimination.” Jelani Cobb has this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the May 30, 2016 issue of The New Yorker.

“The Big Uneasy: What’s roiling the liberal-arts campus?” Nathan Heller has this article in the May 30, 2016 issue of The New Yorker.

“Justices Let Court-Imposed Redistricting Stand in Virginia”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes and Jenna Portnoy of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court leaves in place Va. redistricting decision, rejects GOP lawmakers’ challenge.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds Virginia redistricting.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices rule against Virginia Republicans in black voters case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Republicans Lose at U.S. High Court on Virginia Voting Map.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Racial gerrymandering case ends.”

“Tom Brady fights on, asking Second Circuit for rehearing”: Ben Volin of The Boston Globe has this report. In related coverage, Andrew Mahoney of The Boston Globe reports that “Tom Brady’s attorney had some things to say about Roger Goodell.”

And Bob McGovern of The Boston Herald has an essay titled “Tom Brady’s team is courting a higher power.”

“The Passive-Aggressive U.S. Supreme Court: Even in the face of clear precedent, some justices just don’t like it when a convicted petitioner is right on the law.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Supreme Court upends murder case, race a factor in 1987 conviction”: John Bailey has this front page article in today’s edition of The Rome (Ga.) News-Tribune.

“How Clarence Thomas Broke My Heart”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Strict Texas voter-ID law faces federal court test ahead of presidential election”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article that begins, “A high-stakes election-year legal battle over voting rights gets an important test Tuesday as 15 judges will consider whether Texas’s strictest-in-the-nation voter-identification law will be in effect for the presidential contest this November.”

In related coverage, Sari Horwitz of The Washington Post has an article headlined “Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.”

Bobby Cervantes of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Texas voter ID law back in court; Full appeals court will hear case today.”

Jim Malewitz of The Texas Tribune reports that “Five Years Later, Voter ID Suit Still Moving Forward.”

And The Associated Press reports that “US appeals court revisits Texas voter ID law.”

Once the audio of today’s oral argument before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit becomes available online, I will link to it.