“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘Some good and hard thinking on all sides.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Gorsuch’s ‘Clear Enough’ & Kennedy’s Anti-‘Reflexive Deference’: Two Potential Limits on Chevron Deference.” Chris Walker has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Ten Small Thoughts About Lucia.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“A Better Way to Diversify Harvard: The university favors the rich and overuses racial preferences in admissions; Here’s how the school should approach diversity instead.” Richard D. Kahlenberg has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“SEC Halts In-House Cases After Defeat at Supreme Court; Stay affects cases being litigated before administrative-law judges, which high court said were improperly appointed”: Dave Michaels of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“New York ban on gravity knives upheld by U.S. appeals court”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Government Phone Tracking Scares Justice Roberts, Too; A surprising majority on the Supreme Court rules that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as you travel about your day”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “A Historic Victory for Privacy: In a landmark 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court rules that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location records.”

“First Thoughts on Carpenter v. United States”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Supreme Court ruling on Martha’s Vineyard man could change how some deportation proceedings are initiated”: Akilah Johnson of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Defending Privacy, Supreme Court Says Warrants Generally Are Necessary to Collect Cell Phone Data”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules that warrant is needed to access cell tower records.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “In a victory for privacy, Supreme Court rules cellphone tracking records are off-limits without a warrant.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court cracks down on government snooping through cellphone location records.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “U.S. Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant for Most Cellphone Location Data; Decision sets privacy boundaries in the digital age.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules warrant required for cellphone location data.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices adopt digital-age privacy rules to track cellphones.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules warrants required for cellphone location data.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Bolsters Mobile-Phone Privacy Rights.”

Ariane de Vogue and Clare Foran of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court: Warrant generally needed to track cell phone location data.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court rules police typically need warrants to access cell phone location info.”

Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules law enforcement needs warrant to search cellphone data.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court Dials Up Privacy Rights on Cellphone Records; Government must get a warrant to access a cellphone user’s location data.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Rules That Police Generally Need A Warrant To Get Cell-Site Records; The 5-4 decision — in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined his four more liberal colleagues in the majority — is a victory for privacy advocates.”

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

1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in large measure in Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued an opinion concurring in part. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Ortiz v. United States, No. 16-1423. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link. The Court also issued per curiam decisions (here and here) dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in the cases argued together with Ortiz.

3. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402. Justice Kennedy issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. And Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Full appeals court to rule on Ohio’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood”: Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

And Jim Provance of The Toledo Blade reports that “Court to reconsider Planned Parenthood ruling.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Sixth Circuit order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.