Programming note: On Tuesday, I will be traveling to Los Angeles, where on Thursday I will be arguing an appeal before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena. As a result, additional posts will appear here on Tuesday evening.

As always when I am traveling, appellate-related retweets are much more likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.

“Justices Split Over the Power of Precedent”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court’s Breyer, mentioning abortion case, warns about overturning precedent; Among the cases that deserve respect as precedent is the court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the fundamental right to an abortion, he wrote.”

And Ariane de Vogue of CNN has a report headlined “Justice Breyer’s warning and other things we learned at the Supreme Court Monday.”

“Supreme Court to make history in Winnipeg; first hearings in 144 years outside Ottawa”: Kevin Rollason of The Winnipeg Free Press has this report.

And Kathleen Harris of CBC News reports that “In historic first, Supreme Court of Canada to hold hearings outside Ottawa; Top court to travel to Winnipeg to hear 2 cases and meet with community groups.”

“US Supreme Court seeks response from Workman in impeachment appeal”: Lacie Pierson of The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail has an article that begins, “Before the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to take up appeals from the West Virginia Legislature regarding last year’s impeachment of West Virginia Supreme Court justices, the federal court wants to hear from state Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman and her attorney.”

“What The Supreme Court’s History Can Tell Us About Its Future”: This audio segment featuring law professor Lawrence Lessig appeared on today’s broadcast of WBUR’s “Radio Boston.”

“If judicial nominees don’t support ‘Brown v. Board,’ they don’t support the rule of law”: Sherrilyn Ifill has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Last-minute execution decisions expose wide and bitter rift at Supreme Court”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Clarence Thomas blasts Stephen Breyer as death penalty divides Supreme Court.”

Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court continues open feud over last-minute death penalty appeals.”

Devin Dwyer of ABC News reports that “Conservative Supreme Court justices spar over executions of Muslim, Buddhist inmates.”

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill has reports headlined “Supreme Court’s public death penalty battle surges forward” and “Alito slams Supreme Court order blocking execution of Buddhist inmate.”

“Hyatt, the Constitution, and the Common Law; A new decision on sovereign immunity, and what it means for originalists”: Stephen Sachs has this post online at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Is Roe in Danger? Liberal Justices Seem to Think So; Conservative justices took a step in laying the foundation for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.” Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court’s Liberals Are Warning Us That Roe v. Wade Is in Mortal Danger”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“On Whom Are Nonprecedential Appellate Court Opinions Binding?” Now that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania earlier this month finally began allowing advocates to cite to its non-precedential rulings for their persuasive value, I figured it was an opportune time to pose and answer this question, which is what I have done in this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appearing in tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Outgoing Harvard faculty dean to leave Harvey Weinstein defense team”: Stephanie Ebbert of The Boston Globe has an article that begins, “Harvard Law Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. resigned from the legal team defending Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein against rape and sexual assault charges before Harvard announced Saturday he would not be reappointed as a faculty dean.”

“Tempers Fraying, Justices Continue Debate on Executions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“Death penalty tensions flare again on divided U.S. Supreme Court”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has a report headlined “Weeks Later, Supreme Court Still at Odds on Buddhist Execution Case.”

“Maurer School of Law professor resigns following Title IX investigation”: Emily Isaacman of the Indiana Digital Student has this report.

“California wins in Supreme Court after 28-year fight with inventor”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court’s conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next.’”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court says 1 state can’t be sued in another’s courts.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Conservative Supreme Court reverses earlier decision on sovereign immunity.”

And Tierney Sneed of TPM has a report headlined “With Abortion Cases On Horizon, Breyer Warns Of SCOTUS Eagerness To Overturn Precedent.”

“Strict state anti-abortion laws aimed at Supreme Court, justices not eager to consider them”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit Against Apple to Proceed”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Tony Romm and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules against Apple, allowing lawsuit targeting App Store to proceed.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules Apple can face antitrust suits from iPhone owners over App Store sales.”

Brent Kendall and Tripp Mickle of The Wall Street Journal report that “Apple Loses Bid to End App Antitrust Case in Supreme Court; Lawsuit challenges tech giant’s exclusive control over the marketplace for iPhone apps.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says iPhone users can sue Apple for excessive prices on its App Store.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court allows consumers antitrust suit against Apple.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court lets App Store antitrust suit proceed against Apple.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Apple Loses at U.S. Supreme Court on iPhone App Antitrust Suit.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court says Apple customers can sue over App Store monopoly claims; In a 5-4 decision, the high court allowed a class action lawsuit brought by iPhone users to move forward.”

David Goldman and Brian Fung of CNN Business report that “IPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court rules.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Kavanaugh sides with liberal justices against Apple, deals blow to tech giant in App Store challenge.”

Jacqueline Thomsen and Harper Neidig of The Hill report that “Supreme Court rules iPhone users can sue Apple over App Store prices.”

Joseph Bernstein of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Says Consumers Can Sue Apple For Allegedly Monopolizing The App Store.”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner had a post titled “How Apple’s Loss at Supreme Court Could Impact Entertainment.”

And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Surprise! Kavanaugh joins liberal justices in 5-4 decision; Well, at least he’s not Gorsuch.”

“Nominee for state Appellate Court, hitman share moment at library; Public hearing on nomination scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday”: Andy Thibault of The Republican-American of Waterbury, Connecticut has this report.

“Swan Song of a Great Colossus: The Latest from Richard Posner.” Stephen Presser has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

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

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299. 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.

And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18-315. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

In Price v. Dunn, No. 18-1249, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrence, in which Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined, in the denial of certiorari.

In Dahne v. Richey, No. 18-761, Justice Alito issued a dissent, in which Justices Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined, from the denial of certiorari.

In Myers v. United States, No. 18–6859, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissent, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined, from the Court’s issuance of a GVR “in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief.”

And in Abdur’Rahman v. Parker, No. 18–8332, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.

“Accused of ‘Terrorism’ for Putting Legal Materials Online”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.