“Walmart wins reversal of $32.5 mln ‘Backyard Grill’ verdict”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Hobby Lobby lawyer who beat Obamacare wins seat on federal appeals court”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

You can access the U.S. Senate‘s official roll call vote tally at this link.

“Supreme Court Weighs Price-Fixing Case Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers; How much deference do U.S. courts owe to foreign-government characterizations of their own laws?” Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S.-China trade fight reaches top American court in antitrust case.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Clashes With China at U.S. Supreme Court on Vitamin Exports.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 16-1220.

“Supreme Court Weighs Claims That Texas Voting Maps Discriminate Against Minorities”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court is divided over Texas redistricting maps.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “In Racial Gerrymandering Case, Texas Defends Its Legislative Districts; The Supreme Court is told the lines were redrawn by a lower court, and that should suffice.”

Kevin Diaz of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments in Texas racial gerrymandering case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court seems divided over Texas redistricting.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court divided over Texas electoral district fight.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court appears closely divided over Texas district maps.”

And Alexa Ura of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas redistricting case’s oral arguments at U.S. Supreme Court focus on jurisdiction debate.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-586.

“The Supremes Go 1 for 2: A strong ruling on alien torts but a troubling one on patent rights.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Martins Beach: Supreme Court moves closer to taking case over billionaire Vinod Khosla’s attempt to block public access.” Paul Rogers of The San Jose Mercury News has this report.

“As Trump travel ban (finally) reaches Supreme Court, his talk and tweets are center stage”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Scrutiny Imminent for Trump Travel Ban.”

And in commentary, online at National Review, David French has an essay titled “Will the Supreme Court Join the #Resistance? As the justices prepare to decide the fate of President Trump’s so-called travel ban, the question looms large.”

“Conservatives exert new control over Supreme Court”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“In Arab Bank, justices say it’s up to Congress — not courts — to police foreign corporations”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

“Trump’s Going to Win: Why the Supreme Court will probably uphold the president’s travel ban.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Online at NBC News, law professor Steve Vladeck has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Muslim travel ban case proves the power of the judiciary branch in the age of Trump; The judiciary seems to be the one institution that continues to serve the American people in the way the Founding Fathers intended.”

And online at Slate, Bilal Askaryar has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Muslim Ban Is Working: If the Supreme Court needs proof of the ban’s discriminatory intent, just look at the numbers.”

“Proposed Rule Would Require Disclosure of Settlements Involving Judges; The Chief Justice’s working group released a proposal that would ensure the public has access to names of judicial officers who entered into settlement agreements, including those involving sexual harassment and discrimination complaints”: The California Judicial Branch has issued this news release.

“Trump Judge Judges Trumpily: In his first opinion, one of the president’s new appointees argued rich people have a constitutional right to buy elections.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Kyle Duncan confirmed in tight Senate vote for 5th Circuit Court judgeship”: Drew Broach of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

“Judge Thomas Estes ‘can never command the moral authority’ to be a judge, lawyer tells Massachusetts SJC”: Shira Schoenberg of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts has this report.

Larry Parnass of The Berkshire Eagle reports that “Justices weigh fate of judge who had sex with Pittsfield court employee.”

Emily Cutts of The Daily Hampshire Gazette of Northampton, Massachusetts reports that “SJC hears arguments in Belchertown Judge Thomas Estes case.”

And Alanna Durkin Richer of The Associated Press reports that “Court weighs punishment for judge for courthouse affair.”

“Supreme Court Upholds New Process for Challenging Patents; Ruling provides boost to tech companies, retailers”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds patent review process in victory for tech companies.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds legality of patent review process.”

And Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News reports that “Patent ‘Death Squad’ System Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Republicans to the Court: Strike Down the Travel Ban.” Thomas H. Kean, John Danforth, and Carter Phillips have this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

And at the “Take Care” blog, Amir Ali has a post titled “It’s the Legacy of the Roberts Court — not the Travel Ban — at Stake.”

“Supreme Court says corporations can’t be sued under centuries-old law for overseas human rights abuses”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court denies terrorism victims’ claims against Arab bank.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices say foreign business can’t be sued under 1700s law.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules for Arab Bank over human rights claims.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Shields Corporations From Human-Rights Suits.”

“Supreme Court justices to weigh in on Trump’s powers with travel ban case; Much of president’s agenda is riding on outcome of case”: Stephen Dinan has this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Times.

“Little Sisters of the Poor get their day in Penn. court; Appeals court swats down Attorney General Shapiro’s attempt to keep nuns out of case deciding their rights”: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has issued this news release about a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court hears from all corners of the country ahead of travel ban case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court to hear arguments in Texas gerrymanding case”: James Barragán has this front page article in today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News.

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court looks at Texas district maps.”

“Legislative Committee Approves Richard Robinson For Chief Justice Of State Supreme Court”: Christopher Keating has this front page article in today’s edition of The Hartford Courant.

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

1. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a concurring opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969. Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in full and Justice Kagan joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court delivered the opinion of the Court in various respects in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch issued opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Supreme Court hears case involving Brazilian immigrant who lives on Martha’s Vineyard”: Akilah Johnson of The Boston Globe has this report.

And on yesterday morning’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Shannon Dooling had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Preview: Immigrants’ Rights And Notice To Appear.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Fonseca Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459.

“Billionaire Khosla Is Asking the Supreme Court to Keep People Off His Beach; The venture capitalist believes he has the right to cut off access to the waterfront at his California property — giving the public yet another reason to rage about tech industry leaders”: Sarah McBride of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Tonga govt wants an ‘all-Tongan’ Supreme Court”: Radio New Zealand has this report.