“Decision time: Some of the Supreme Court’s notable rulings this year.” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Murder trial set for Sigfredo Garcia”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“High Court ruling may hurt claims of talc link to cancer”: Jim Salter of The Associated Press has this report.

“Topless bans aim to protect, but some question who needs protecting”: In today’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist Courtland Milloy has an essay that begins, “To hear some lawmakers tell it, the female breast exposed in public has the power to destroy the moral fabric of the nation.”

“Anti-sharia group offers donors a private tour and cocktails at Trump hotel”: Amy Brittain and Abigail Hauslohner have this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“A look at special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of lawyers”: Eric Tucker of The Associated Press has this report.

“Some States Beat Supreme Court to Punch on Eliminating Gerrymanders”: Thomas Fuller and Michael Wines have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial titled “The Supreme Court has a chance to rein in partisan gerrymandering.”

And online at The Washington Post, Tim Cullen and Dale Schultz have an essay titled “We led the Wisconsin Senate. Now we’re fighting gerrymandering in our state.”

“Appeals Court Won’t Kill Lawsuit Claiming Universal Stole ‘The Purge’; The 9th Circuit rules that Douglas Jordan-Benel isn’t challenging the activity of filmmaking, he merely wants to be paid”: At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Court finds Texas restriction on dentist advertising unconstitutional”: Brendan Pierson of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Bayview Park cross ruled unconstitutional, must be removed in 30 days”: In today’s edition of The Pensacola (Fla.) News Journal, Jim Little has a front page article that begins, “A cross that has stood in Bayview Park for the last 48 years must be removed within 30 days, a federal judge has ruled.”

And Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times reports that “Judge reluctantly orders cross to be removed from public park, hopes SCOTUS will revisit; Atheists challenged religious symbol upkeep funded by public moneys.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida at this link.

“Judge won’t make Trump University settlement objector post large bond”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post.

“UCLA School of Law’s Supreme Court clinic wins landmark trademark case; The victory in Matal v. Tam marks the second win of the term for the clinic”: Joshua Rich of UCLA Newsroom has this report.

Word on the street is that this guy and this guy also had something to do with yesterday’s outcome.

“Koch Bros.-Linked PAC Runs Ad for Penn Law Prof’s 3rd Circuit Nomination”: Max Mitchell has this front page article in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Court’s Cut of GoPro Footage OK’d in Decision Affirming $3M Award in Fatal Motorcycle Crash”: Max Mitchell had this front page article in yesterday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

I wrote the Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee and argued the appeal on behalf of the party that prevailed in last week’s Pa. Superior Court ruling in this case.

“Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment.” Robert Barnes has this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

In today’s edition of The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court ruling against censoring The Slants’s name bolsters Washington Redskins trademark case.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article headlined “Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks.” And Ken Belson has an article headlined “Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules the Slants may trademark their name, striking down law banning offensive terms.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds offensive trademarks as form of free speech.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules Government Can’t Reject Disparaging Trademarks; Justices unanimously sided with Asian-American rock band the Slants, which was refused a trademark by the Patent Office.”

In today’s edition of The Oregonian, David Greenwald has a front page article headlined “Portland’s the Slants ‘humbled and thrilled’ after Supreme Court trademark win.”

Julieta Chiquillo of The Dallas Morning News has an article headlined “Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional.” And Stephen Whyno of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court pushes Redskins’ name fight back to society.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Curbs on Disparaging Trademarks Thrown Out by Top U.S. Court.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court finds law banning offensive trademarks unconstitutional.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court strikes down law blocking disparaging trademarks.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court rules the government can’t refuse to register trademarks considered offensive; Redskins declare victory after Asian-American band wins challenge to disparagement ban.”

Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reports that “Supreme Court rules: Offensive trademarks must be allowed; Justice Samuel Alito: ‘Giving offense is a viewpoint.’”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule Against Disparaging Trademarks; Simon Tam, the Asian-American frontman of The Slants, emerges victorious in his years-long quest to register his rock band’s name.”

Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “Trademarks protected as free speech.”

In commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Stephen L. Carter has an essay titled “Offensive Speech Is Free Speech. If Only We’d Listen. The Supreme Court loosens restrictions on trademarks at a time when society is less tolerant of unpopular ideas.”

And at CNN.com, Marc Randazza has an essay titled “Rock band The Slants’ victory in court secures your rights.”

“Behind the Democrats’ Emoluments Lawsuit Against Trump”: Jeffrey Toobin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Justices to Hear Major Challenge to Partisan Gerrymandering”: Adam Liptak has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times. And Michael Cooper has an article headlined “Gerrymandering Case Echoes in Inkblot-Like Districts Across the U.S.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has a front page article headlined “Partisan gerrymandering is almost as old as America, but will the Supreme Court decide it has gone too far?”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to rule on how election districts are drawn.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps; High court to consider whether excessive partisan gerrymandering violates constitution.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear major political redistricting case; Justices stop forced redraw of Wisconsin’s map.”

In today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Patrick Marley has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Wisconsin’s redistricting case but blocks redrawing of maps.”

In today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal, Ed Treleven has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to take Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, delays order to re-do districts for 2018.”

Katelyn Ferral of The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin reports that “U.S. Supreme Court set to hear Wisconsin gerrymandering case.”

In today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News, Jamie Lovegrove has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to take up partisan gerrymandering case with potential Texas implications.”

Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Supreme Court’s review of Wisconsin partisan gerrymander case could have impact in NC.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Top court to hear case that could reshape US political map.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Partisan Gerrymandering Will Get U.S. Supreme Court Scrutiny.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to hear major case on political boundaries.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court to hear partisan gerrymandering case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court to hear partisan gerrymandering case; State wins stay from justices on 5-4 vote.”

Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Potentially Monumental Political Gerrymandering Case; The case could dramatically impact the way states draw electoral districts.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court may rule on partisan gerrymandering — but maybe not.”

Cassandra Pollock of The Texas Tribune has a report headlined “The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a Wisconsin redistricting case. What does that mean for Texas?”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay headlined “Does Partisan Gerrymandering Violate the First Amendment? A pair of Supreme Court decisions about freedom of speech strengthen the plaintiffs’ argument in a blockbuster redistricting case.”

And online at The Boston Globe, David Daley has an essay titled “Will this redistricting case tilt Justice Kennedy?”

“For Jay Sekulow, New Trump Lawyer, Public Stumble Is Out of Character”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Tom Hamburger have an article headlined “Conservative talk-show host and First Amendment litigator is Trump’s newest lawyer.”

And Paul Barrett of Bloomberg Businessweek has a report headlined “The New Face of Trump’s Legal Team Is the Christian Right’s Pit Bull; Jay Sekulow has an impressive Supreme Court record; But a criminal defense lawyer he is not.”

“Free Speech at the Supreme Court”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial titled “The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech.”

“Supreme Court Rules for Bush Officials in Post-9/11 Suit”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “High court: U.S. officials can’t be held liable for alleged unconstitutional treatment of noncitizens.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Top Court Drops Suit Filed by Immigrants Imprisoned After Sept. 11; Justice Breyer dissents, saying citizens during war have at times been deprived of basic rights by the government.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court bails out Bush officials over 9/11 detentions.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court sides with officials sued over post-Sept. 11 detentions.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Sept. 11 Detention Lawsuit Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court rules Ashcroft, Mueller cannot be held accountable for post-9/11 immigration detainee claims.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Justice Department officials get immunity for 9/11 response.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules Post-9/11 Detainees Can’t Sue Top U.S. Officials.”

And in commentary, at the “Just Security” blog, Steve Vladeck has a post titled “On Justice Kennedy’s Flawed and Depressing Narrowing of Constitutional Damages Remedies.”

“Supreme Court says sex offenders can access social media”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Invalidates N.C. Law Barring Sex Offenders from Social Media; In unanimous opinion, Justice Kennedy says internet platforms have become key for communication, information access.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court suggests constitutional right to Facebook, other social media.”

Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “US Supreme Court strikes down NC sex offender social media ban.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Sex-Offender Social Media Ban Thrown Out by U.S. High Court.”

The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court strikes down law banning use of Facebook by registered sex offenders.”

David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “There’s a constitutional right to use social media, Supreme Court says; North Carolina’s law was ‘unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech.’”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down State Ban On Registered Sex Offender Social Media Use.”

Andy Duehren of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court ruling could imperil Texas sex offender rules.”

And at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Supreme Court gives Internet broad new protections.”

“Supreme Court Doesn’t Care What You Say on the Internet; Two free-speech rulings combine to make clear that any social media regulation will have to come from the companies themselves.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“High court blocks plaintiffs from outside California in drug suit”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Supreme Court rules for death row prisoner seeking mental health defense”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Alabama Death Row Inmate; In a 5-4 decision, the court finds state failed to provide a murder defendant with a psychiatric expert who could contribute adequately to his defense.”

And Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “U.S. Supreme Court orders new hearing in Alabama death row inmate’s case.”

“U.S. Supreme Court and top patent court rarely see eye to eye”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“DOJ walks narrow path on agency deference in big SCOTUS employment case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“U.S. Supreme Court reinstates convicted Cleveland killer’s death sentence”: Cory Shaffer of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

“Dodging Insanity: The Supreme Court doesn’t know how the justice system should deal with mental illness.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Mistrial declared in talcum powder suit after U.S. Supreme Court limits where companies can be sued”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report.

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: A clash of laws.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The Supreme Court’s Ominous National Security Ruling: The verdict could have significant implications for the case testing the Trump administration’s ‘travel ban’ barring entry of persons from six majority-Muslim countries.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Liberals Hope To Take Down Trump’s Judicial Nominee With A Controversial Blogging Past”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Justice Kennedy’s Beauty Pageant: Challengers are parading different standards before the U.S. Supreme Court justice, trying to offer a definition of partisan gerrymandering he’ll find acceptable.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in Conversation with Associate Dean Alan Morrison”: The American Constitution Society recently posted this video on YouTube.

“A New Way of Defining Oral Argument Terrain”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.