“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.

“Columbus to introduce new panhandling legislation after US Supreme Court ruling”: Mark Ferenchik has this front page article in today’s edition of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.

“Supreme Court Widens Reach of Sales Taxes in E-Commerce”: Adam Liptak, Ben Casselman, and Julie Creswell of The New York Times have this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules that states may require online retailers to collect sales taxes.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules that internet businesses must collect all state and local sales taxes.”

Jess Bravin, Brent Kendall, and Laura Stevens of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rules States Can Collect Sales Tax on Web Purchases; High court decision erases a price advantage internet merchants have had in wooing consumers from real-world stores.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court allows states to collect sales taxes on more online transactions.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules states can collect sales tax from out-of-state retailers.”

Dana Ferguson of The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports that “South Dakota wins U.S. Supreme Court case, can collect online sales tax.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “High Court: Online shoppers can be forced to pay sales tax.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Online Retailers Can Be Forced to Collect Tax, High Court Rules.”

Bernie Becker and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Supreme Court hands states a victory in tax case that may cost consumers; The decision means states are free to collect billions of dollars in extra revenue from online retailers.”

Chris Geidner and Leticia Miranda of BuzzFeed News report that “The Supreme Court Just Ruled That States Can Require Internet Retailers To Collect Sales Taxes; Businesses previously had to have a physical presence in a state in order for the state to require them to collect sales taxes.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Ruling Means Some Online Purchases Will Cost More.”

“S.E.C. Judges Were Appointed Unlawfully, Justices Rule”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with discredited investment adviser, says SEC judge was improperly appointed.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court ducks decision on whether president has the power to fire any top federal official.”

Dave Michaels and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “High Court Rules Appointments Process for SEC Judges Violated Constitution; Ruling says the judges needed to be appointed by the five-member commission, not by other staff.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “SEC judge appointments unconstitutional, U.S. high court says.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Top Court Curbs SEC Judges, Backs ‘Buckets of Money’ Adviser.”

“The Future of Chevron Deference: Of Zombie Fungus and Acoustic Separation.” Jeffrey Pojanowski has this guest post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Why the Supreme Court’s software patent ban didn’t last: How one court brought software patents back from the grave.” Timothy B. Lee of Ars Technica has this report.

“Elena Kagan Is Up to Something: Is the liberal justice drifting to the right, or is she playing the long game with her conservative colleagues?” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Stare Decisis and Judge-Made Law: What today’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair might tell us about the future of qualified immunity.” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Congrats, Supreme Court. Keep Thinking Small. The justices are wise to steer clear of big social controversies. Usually, anyway.” Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Appeals court orders Beltway Sniper Lee Boyd Malvo resentenced in killings”: Peter Hermann of The Washington Post has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday agreed to throw out the four life sentences that Lee Boyd Malvo received for his role in the 2002 Beltway sniper shootings that occurred in Virginia when he was 17.”

Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court grants new sentencing hearings for DC sniper.”

And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court calls D.C. sniper’s life sentences illegal.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Isakson, Perdue livid about blocked Georgia judicial pick”: Tamar Hallerman has this post at the “Political Insider” blog of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Why Jeff Flake may start blocking Trump’s judicial nominees”: Steve Benen has this post at MSNBC’s “The MaddowBlog.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: Inching toward checkout for the term.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Top Pa. Republicans appeal gerrymandering case to U.S. Supreme Court”: Jonathan Lai and Liz Navratil of The Philadephia Inquirer have this report.

Being able to cite a published Ninth Circuit opinion whose title begins with Shame on You is something that appellate advocates may find irresistible: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this decision today.

“CAFC Vacates and Remands: TTAB Applied Wrong Test in Finding ZERO Not Generic for Soft Drinks.” John L. Welch has this post today at “The TTABlog.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Federal Circuit ruling can be accessed here and here.

“Parties in in North Carolina Partisan Gerrymandering Case Spar Over Whether U.S. Supreme Court Should Hear Case or Remand the Case Following Gill”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“The Supreme Court Needs to Know the Truth About Trump’s Travel Ban: A consular officer explains how the waiver process was crafted to project an illusion of fairness.” Christopher M. Richardson has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Correct the Record, Noel Francisco: The solicitor general gave the Supreme Court incomplete and misleading information about the travel ban’s waiver process.” Jeremy Stahl has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Full US appeals court to consider Planned Parenthood case”: The Associated Press has this report on an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

My earlier coverage of the now-vacated unanimous original three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.

“The Imminent Demise of Chevron Deference?” Joshua Matz has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

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 delivered the opinion of the Court in Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, No. 17-530. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 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 Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in one respect. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494. Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch each issued a concurring opinion. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Supreme Court to hear property seizure case”: Matthew LeBlanc of The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana has this report.

“A Question of Legitimacy Looms for the Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Donald Trump Just Connected The Family Separation Crisis To The Travel Ban”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“Late June Grants Could Spice Up Next SCOTUS Term”: Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Appeals court tosses veterans’ lawsuits over burn pits”: Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Jeff Flake threatens to block Trump’s appellate court nominees over Cuba travel, tariffs”: Ariane de Vogue and Ted Barrett of CNN have this report.

“Fourth Circuit Nominees Breeze Through Senate Hearing”: Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service has this report.

And Michael Macagnone of Law360.com reports that “Judicial Nominees Talk Cocaine, Incest At Bizarre Hearing.”

You can view the video of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for judicial nominees via this link.

“Federal appeals court decision recognizes ‘humanity’ of immigrant children detained in Berks County facility”: Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued on Monday.

“Denise Clayton named Kentucky Court of Appeals’ first black chief judge”: Matthew Glowicki of The Louisville Courier Journal has this report.