“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘Only a few more days.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Barring Political Apparel at Polling Places”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says Minnesota ban on political apparel in polling places too broad.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court gives voters more freedom to wear political T-shirts to polling places.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes down political dress code at polls in latest decision involving voting.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Minnesota Law Banning Political Apparel at Polling Stations; By a 7-to-2 vote, court limited how far states can go to restrict political speech near voting booth.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules state law banning political apparel at polls is illegal.”

Erin Golden of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law on political clothing at polling places; U.S. Supreme Court rules Minnesota law is too broad.”

Tad Vezner of The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota’s voter clothing law.” According to the version of the article that currently appears online, “Justice Maria Sotomayor wrote the dissenting minority opinion which stated the high court should have had the Minnesota Supreme Court weigh in before declaring the law unconstitutional.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Justices strike down Minnesota voter clothing restrictions.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court throws out Minnesota ban on voter political apparel.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Voids Law Banning Political Apparel at Polls.”

Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law that banned political apparel at polling place.”

Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law prohibiting voters from wearing political apparel to polls.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court strikes down law banning political clothing at polls.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Rules That Bans On ‘Political Apparel’ In Polling Places Must Be ‘Sensible’; The 7–2 ruling struck down a Minnesota law.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down State Ban on Polling Place Apparel; Century-old Minnesota law is similar to those in about nine other states.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court strikes down ban on political apparel at polling places.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Delivers TKO Win On Political Apparel Ban.”

“Supreme Court Revives Price-Fixing Case Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers; Justices unanimously rule lower court was too deferential to Chinese government”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Robert Delaney of The South China Morning Post reports that “US Supreme Court rules against Chinese vitamin C producers in antitrust case; The justices said US courts were not bound by China’s assertion that the vitamin makers, who are accused of price-fixing, were only following their country’s laws.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court addresses question of foreign law in US courts.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Trump gets win at U.S. Supreme Court in China antitrust case.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Trump, Vitamin Purchasers in China Clash.”

“Supreme Court justices are selling stocks that can lead to forced recusals from cases”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Above The Law Goes To The Supreme Court: Check out this very interesting cert petition, just filed by Paul Clement.” David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

“Judges Wouldn’t Consider Forgiving Crippling Student Loans — Until Now; For decades, college debt was immune from the bankruptcy process; Judges are actively seeking ways help to debtors”: Katy Stech Ferek of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“The 96-Year-Old Brooklyn Judge Standing Up to the Supreme Court”: Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

“Tribute: ‘Reinhardt and I’ by Alex Kozinski.” The “Concurring Opinions” blog has this post.

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

1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 16-1220. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Sen. Grassley Says Report On Sexual Harassment In Judiciary Simply Kicks The Can”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this morning’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Divided over partisan election maps, Supreme Court could learn a lesson from divided college campus”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Richard A. Posner‘s successor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued his first published opinion: Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder, Jr. issued this decision yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.