“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.

“Seven Ways Alabama Has Made It Harder to Vote: Five years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act; Since then, Alabama has enacted a slew of restrictive voting laws and policies.” Maggie Astor will have this article in Monday’s edition of The New York Times.

“NM Court of Appeals judges visit Carlsbad, seeking election”: DeJanay Booth of The Carlsbad Current-Argus has this report.

And The Farmington (N.M.) Daily Times reports that “Court of appeals candidate visits Farmington.”

“Border Patrol Agents Must Be Held Accountable: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ziglar v. Abbasi, though, makes it very difficult for individuals to get justice when their constitutional rights are violated.” Law professor Steve Vladeck has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Sotomayor, Fourth Amendment Visionary: How the Supreme Court vindicated the justice’s prescient theory of digital privacy.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Worrisome Future of Policing Technology”: Online at The New York Times, law professor Barry Friedman has an essay that begins, “The Supreme Court decided on Friday that before the government can get your cellphone location records — well, at least more than six days’ worth of them — it must have probable cause to think you did something wrong, and a warrant.”

“A Power Grab of Sorts, Buried in a Supreme Court Decision; Kennedy calls for overturning a precedent that allows agencies to interpret laws, instead of judges”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Supreme Court has six significant cases remaining — and one big question about its future”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“GOP Senator Threatens to Block Trump’s Judicial Nominees Over Trade Policies; Jeff Flake, one of the president’s sharpest Republican critics, says a number of his colleagues oppose tariffs and demand votes”: Del Quentin Wilber of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“On Gerrymandering, Court Needs Constitutional Resolve”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“What The Supreme Court’s Tax Decision Means For South Dakota”: This audio segment featuring South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday.”

“Supreme Court poised to rule on Trump travel ban, other cases”: Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters have this report.

“Voting: Purging, Packing, Cracking, Standing; Analysis of SCOTUS gerrymandering and voter purge decisions with Paul M. Smith, who argued two of the cases.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

“Gov. Rauner’s legacy rests with the U.S. Supreme Court”: Columnist John Kass has this essay online at The Chicago Tribune.

“In Carpenter, the Supreme Court Rules, Narrowly, for Privacy”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.

“U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ‘Water Wars’ imminent but battle to save Apalachicola Bay won’t end soon”: Ledyard King of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“Oregon Supreme Court won’t hear Sweet Cakes by Melissa’s appeal”: Aimee Green of The Oregonian has an article that begins, “The Oregon Supreme Court has declined to consider the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the now-defunct Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple in 2013 based on the bakers’ religious objections.”

“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.”