“Legal experts on Donald Trump: ‘He lacks respect for basic norms’; From bringing back waterboarding to temporarily banning Muslims, legal professionals says Donald Trump ‘pays no attention to the law.'” Peter Stone of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Supreme Court to Review President’s Ability to Temporarily Fill Top Posts; The case centers on how to interpret provisions in the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “President’s Temporary Appointments Draw U.S. High Court Review.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Again, the president’s power to appoint is at issue.”

“The Supreme Court Just Ruled In Favor Of The Police State, And Sonia Sotomayor Is Not Having It; She lashed out at ‘lawless police conduct’ that disproportionately targets black and brown Americans”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Connecticut Ban on Semiautomatic Weapons”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Russell Blair of The Hartford Courant reports that “Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Connecticut Assault Weapons Bans.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut’s ban on ‘assault weapons.’”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court turns down assault weapons cases.”

Joe Palazzolo of The Wall Street Journal reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Connecticut’s Semiautomatic Gun Ban; Won’t hear appeal of law banning rifles that resemble military weapons, high-capacity magazines.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “New York, Connecticut Assault-Weapon Bans Let Stand by Court.”

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

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Taylor v. United States, No. 14-6166. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, No. 15-138. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment, in which opinion Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Breyer also issued an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and dissenting from the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the decision. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Utah v. Strieff, No. 14-1373. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined in part. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

5. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 15-415. Justice Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules for police in search case“; “High court nixes European suit against R.J. Reynolds“; “High court upholds process for challenging patents“; and “High court says gov’t can prosecute drug robbery.”

“Roberts’ Blind Spot on Judicial Ethics”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in two new cases. And the Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

In Williams v. Louisiana, No. 14-9409, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurrence, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined, in the Court’s GVR order. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissent, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, from that GVR order.

And in Flowers v. Louisiana, No. 14-10486, Justice Alito issued a dissent, in which Justice Thomas joined, from the Court’s GVR order.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court considers appointment of labor board official“; “Supreme Court takes up dispute over immigrant detention“; “Supreme Court leaves state assault weapons bans in place“; “Supreme Court rejects appeal from Illinois smokers“; and “Supreme Court rejects apartheid victims’ appeal.”

“The Death Penalty Case Where Prosecutors Wrote the Judge’s ‘Opinion’: Is that fair? The U.S. Supreme Court could soon decide.” Andrew Cohen has this report online at The Marshall Project.

“Just how rightward-leaning was the Burger Supreme Court?” In today’s edition of The Washington Post, law professor Justin Driver has this review of “The Burger Court and the Rise of the Judicial Right” by law professor Michael J. Graetz and Linda Greenhouse.

“Divided Supreme Court Lurches to Term’s End; Ideological stalemate leaves major legal disputes undecided, with little change in sight”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “All eyes are on these three Supreme Court cases.”

Reuters reports that “Immigration, abortion, race rulings due at Supreme Court.”

And in commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “A Divided Supreme Court Hears Three Divisive Cases.”

“Justice Department offers settlement on Feres case, halting Supreme Court consideration”: Patricia Kime of Military Times has this report.

“Dispute over New Mexico Hatch chile labeling heats up”: The Associated Press has this report.

My earlier coverage of Friday’s Tenth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Appeals Court’s Ruling on Concealed Gun Carry Exposes Stark Divide”: Pete Williams of NBC News has this report.

And Reuters reports that “Supreme Court may take action on state assault weapon bans.”

“End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave.” Paul Bedard of The Washington Examiner has this report today.

Update: Ginni Thomas has this post on Facebook characterizing the report of her husband’s impending retirement as “bogus.”

“Obama immigration win at Supreme Court could benefit Trump”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“9th Circ. Reinstates Order for Wiccan Prisoner”: Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Seventh Circuit: Gilbert’s senior status on federal bench allows service on court and as SIU trustee.” The Madison-St. Clair County Record has this report.

For those who just can’t wait until June 27, 2016 to see the Sixth Circuit’s new web site: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has made available a preview of its new web site at this link.

New Fifth Circuit three-judge panel opinion featuring “informal en banc” determination: Yesterday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this decision. The initial footnote of both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion reveal that the en banc Fifth Circuit voted on an issue that the appeal presents.

Law review articles discussing the “informal en banc” procedures of the federal appellate courts can be accessed here and here.

Fourth Circuit rejects constitutional challenge to the bar admissions rules of the Maryland federal district court brought by out-of-state attorneys: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Third Circuit revisits Lehman Brothers in another must-read sanctions opinion”: Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“Ex-Gov. Rowland Loses Latest Appeal: Moves Closer To 2 1/2-Year Prison Sentence.” Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Connecticut ex-Governor Rowland’s conviction upheld on appeal.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court upholds conviction of ex-Connecticut governor.”

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

“Puhl, federal appeals court nominee from ND, slated for Senate hearing”: Patrick Springer of The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota has this report.

“The Unintended Consequences of the Stanford Rape-Case Recall”: Online at The New Yorker, law professor Jeannie Suk has a post that begins, “When the Supreme Court refused to overturn Roe v. Wade, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992, a plurality of the Justices famously explained that doing otherwise would look like surrender to the intense political protests directed at the Court.”

“Livonia native new Harvard Law School student president”: The Detroit Free Press has this report.

“Two indicted in Markel slaying”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has an article that begins, “Leon County grand jurors Friday indicted two men in the murder-for-hire plot of Dan Markel.”

“Obama’s Supreme Court Lawyer ‘Can’t Imagine’ The Justices Would Back A Muslim Ban”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.

“The Legal Residue of American Empire: Imperialism has left tricky sovereignty questions with which the U.S. Supreme Court is only now reckoning.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“U.S. transgender woman’s journey turns into constitutional fight”: Daniel Trotta of Reuters has this report.

“Top Obama Lawyer: Obamacare Fight Over, Muslim Ban Unlikely.” Ari Melber of NBC News has this interview with U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

“The Hatch Valley may be to chiles what the Napa Valley is to grapes.” So begins an interesting opinion that Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The opinion’s first paragraph makes me look forward even more to my visit this September to Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Taos, New Mexico. And because Judge Gorsuch wrote the opinion, you can be sure it’s an entertaining read.

In fact, news of the ruling reached me via email from a reader who sent me the opinion’s opening paragraphs together with a link to the decision at the Tenth Circuit’s web site. The clear and captivating style of writing found in the opinion’s opening paragraphs made me quite confident that Judge Gorsuch would turn out to be the opinion’s author, as in fact he did..

“Video-sharing sites win big in DCMA legal fight; Case questioned if DMCA gave immunity to ISPs for their users’ infringement”: David Kravets of Ars Technica has this report.

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Vimeo wins U.S. appeal in music copyright case.”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes; Barry Diller’s Vimeo scores a win as the 2nd Circuit rules that safe harbor applies to pre-1972 recordings and isn’t disqualified by employees who saw infringements.”

Wendy Davis of MediaPost reports that “Vimeo Wins Copyright Battle Over Golden Oldies.”

Mike Masnick of Techdirt has a post titled “Appeals Court Gives Big Loss To Record Labels In Their Quixotic Lawsuit Against Vimeo For Lipdubs.”

And Courthouse News Service reports that “Vimeo Shielded from Record Labels’ Onslaught.”

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

“U.S. Health-Care Law Just Got Even More Confusing”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Did politics figure in Gov. Wolf’s pick for high court?” Chris Brennan of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“Time for a ‘No Buy’ List on Guns”: Law professor Adam Winkler had this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

And in response thereto, online today at National Review, law professor Josh Blackman has an essay titled “A ‘No Buy’ List for Suspected Terrorists Would Be Constitutionally Reckless.”