“Baseball Keeps Antitrust Exemption as U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeals”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Supreme Court Upholds Ohio’s Purge of Voting Rolls”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds Ohio’s way of removing infrequent voters from rolls.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court makes it easier for states to remove voters from the rolls if they skip an election.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says states can remove voters who skip elections, ignore warnings.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Backs Ohio Voter Purge; Decision by conservative justices could open the door for more states to adopt such rules.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court gives OK to states to clean voting rolls.”

Jack Torry and Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch report that “Ohio’s voter purge system upheld by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio’s process for updating voter registration rolls.”

Hailey Fuchs of The Toledo Blade reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purging process.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court backs Ohio voter purge; Democrats blast ruling.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Backs States’ Voter-Purge Efforts.”

Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court upholds Ohio voter purges; The 5-4 ruling found that Ohio’s practice of stripping voters from its rolls if they don’t vote over a six-year period and don’t respond to mailed warnings did not violate a pair of federal laws.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPRs “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Ohio Voter-Purge Law.”

“Tied U.S. Supreme Court decision means Washington must remove barriers to salmon migration; A tie 4-4 vote by the high court upholds a lower-court decision ordering barriers to salmon migration be removed, ending a bitter decades-old controversy”: Hal Bernton of The Seattle Times has this report.

Joel Connelly of SeattlePI reports that “Courts have ruled — Wash. must fix culverts so salmon can pass.”

In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, John Eligon has an article headlined “‘This Ruling Gives Us Hope’: Supreme Court Sides With Tribe in Salmon Case.”

And Phuong Le of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court tie favors Indian tribes in Washington state.”

“U.S. net neutrality rules expire, court battle looms”: David Shepardson of Reuters has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Husted Decision Will Make It More Difficult for Democrats to Vote”: Jeffrey Toobin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“New Supreme Court test coming on DACA?” Lyle Denniston has this post at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“In Wedding Cake Case, an Advance for Gay Rights?” Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Chipping away at the caseload.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The Supreme Court Takes a Nakedly Political Turn: You don’t have to go to law school to understand why five justices allowed Ohio to purge its voter rolls.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy? Big Tech wants to exploit our personal data, and the government wants to keep tabs on us. But ‘privacy’ isn’t what’s really at stake.” Louis Menand has this article in the June 18, 2018 issue of The New Yorker. The article contains plenty of U.S. Supreme Court-related discussion.

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

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Sveen v. Melin, No. 16-1432. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432. And Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And the Court issued a per curiam decision affirming by an equally divided Court in Washington v. United States, No. 17-269. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was recused. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“OT2017 #28: ‘Stale Cake.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Dan Epps and special guest William Baude, via this link.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases but did request the views of the Solicitor General in three related cases.

“Was It a False Confession in ‘Making a Murderer’? The Supreme Court May Decide.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.