“U.S. Supreme Court denies Brendan Dassey’s appeal in ‘Making a Murderer’ case”: Alison Dirr and Andy Thompson of The Post-Crescent of Appleton, Wisconsin have this report.

“How the Supreme Court is changing the rules on voting”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voting Maps That Were Called Discriminatory”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds Texas redistricting a lower court said discriminated against black and Hispanic voters.”

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Upholds Texas District Maps Previously Ruled Discriminatory; Court also declines for now to rule on challenge to North Carolina’s congressional map, which GOP-run legislature drew to produce lopsided wins for Republican candidates.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds most Texas election districts over charges of racial discrimination.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds Texas congressional map as legal.”

Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Texas does not have to redraw most political districts.”

Sarah Smith of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “A Fort Worth state House district is racially gerrymandered, Supreme Court rules.”

James Barragán of The Dallas Morning News reports that “Supreme Court upholds most of Texas voting maps that lower court deemed racially discriminatory.”

Kevin Diaz of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court gives Texas partial victory in racial gerrymandering case, state must redraw one district.”

Mark Sherman and Paul J. Weber of The Associated Press report that “Supreme Court accepts Texas voting maps in blow to Democrats.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court favors Republicans in gerrymandering cases.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Largely Backs Texas on Disputed Voting Districts.”

Ariane de Vogue and Eli Watkins of CNN report that “Supreme Court allows most disputed maps in Texas, NC gerrymandering cases to be used.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court sends back N.C. gerrymandering case, mostly rejects Texas map challenge; The justices had already passed on chances to issue sweeping redistricting decisions in Maryland and Wisconsin cases.”

Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Texas Tested A Strategy For Discriminating Against Voters. It Worked.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Ruled That Only One Of Several Challenged Texas Districts Is An ‘Impermissible Racial Gerrymander’; The 5–4 decision prompted a strong rebuke from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.”

Alex Ura of The Texas Tribune reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules Texas lawmakers did not intentionally discriminate in drawing political maps; The court also upheld 10 of 11 districts that had been flagged as problematic.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Upholds Texas’ Congressional, State Legislative Maps.”

“Justices Send Gay Rights and Voting Cases Back to Lower Courts”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has articles headlined “Justices decline to rule on florist who refused wedding services to same-sex couple” and “Supreme Court sends case on North Carolina gerrymandering back to lower court.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court puts off further rulings on partisan gerrymandering and religion vs. same-sex weddings.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has articles headlined “First cake, now flowers: Supreme Court gives florist who refused to serve gay wedding a new hearing” and “Supreme Court defers new case from North Carolina challenging partisan election maps.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court orders Washington to reconsider same-sex marriage First Amendment case.” And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court holds off on North Carolina partisan gerrymander case.”

Christine Willmsen of The Seattle Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court hands Richland florist’s gay-wedding case back to Washington courts.”

Kristin M. Kraemer and Annette Cary of The Tri-City Herald of Kennewick, Washington report that “U.S. Supreme Court sends Richland florist case back to state.”

Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Supreme Court sends NC partisan gerrymander case back for more arguments.”

Gene Johnson of The Associated Press reports that “Justices won’t hear case of anti-gay marriage florist.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court ducks dispute over florist who refused gay wedding request.” And Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme court sidesteps North Carolina dispute over Republican election maps.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Orders New Look at Florist’s Appeal on Gay Weddings” and “Supreme Court Orders New Look at North Carolina Gerrymandering Case.”

Ariane de Vogue and Eli Watkins of CNN report that “Supreme Court won’t take up case of florist who refused service for same-sex couple.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “SCOTUS punts in another fight over denial of services for same-sex wedding.”

And Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News reports that “This Christian Florist Who Turned Away A Gay Couple Will Get Another Chance To Win, The Supreme Court Says; Lawyers for Barronelle Stutzman contend state officials were hostile to her Christian faith.”

“Why Visa and Mastercard Should Thank the Supreme Court, Too: A court victory for Amex will help the three big card companies continue charging high fees and hurt upstart payment companies.” Aaron Back of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Supreme Court is asked to prevent removal, destruction of giant cross on public land in Md.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.

“Conservative Justices Don’t Much Care for Antitrust Law; Ruling in favor of American Express should bring smiles to the big tech companies too”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Wait, wait . . . there’s more.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The US Supreme Court Handed Amex an Anti-Steering Victory”: Katherine Fan has this blog post at “The Points Guy.”

At the “Doctor of Credit” blog, Chuck has a post titled “Supreme Court Rules in Favor of American Express who Prohibits Retailers from ‘Steering’ Customers.”

And Reddit’s “Churning” has a discussion thread titled “Supreme Court holds 5-4 that American Express’ anti-steering rules do not violate federal antitrust law.”

“Unanimous Sixth Circuit Upholds Six Ohio Judicial Candidate Speech/Conduct Rules Against First Amendment Challenge”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog” about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Appeals court says Ohio’s rules on judicial campaigns are constitutional.”

“America after Anthony Kennedy: What Kennedy’s departure would mean for abortion, gay rights, and more.” Dylan Matthews of Vox has this report.

“Supreme Court Rules for American Express in Swipe-Fee Antitrust Case; High court decides card rules for merchants aren’t anticompetitive”: Brent Kendall and AnnaMaria Andriotis of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says American Express contract with merchants does not stifle credit card competition.”

Sabrina Eaton of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “U.S. Supreme Court decides against Ohio in American Express antitrust case.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules for American Express in credit card case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court backs American Express in merchant fee dispute.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “American Express Wins as High Court Tosses Credit-Card Suit.”

And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sides with American Express in antitrust case.”

“He Sold Drugs for $225. Indiana Took His $42,000 Land Rover.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

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

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-586. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454. Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“OT2017 #30: ‘Most Ambitious Crossovers.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel, Dan Epps, and recurring guest host Leah Litman, via this link.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in seven new cases. In addition, the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

And in Peede v. Jones, No. 17-8491, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined, respecting the denial of certiorari.