“Prisoner was barred from group worship on some Wiccan holidays. Court says he can sue.” Paul Egan of The Detroit Free Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“U.S. court voids $65 million settlement tied to Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

“Beware This Appellate Waiver Trap for the Unwary in Pa. State Court Civil Cases”: This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will appeal in Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Nearly all Democratic candidates oppose death penalty as public opinion shifts”: Bob Egelko has this front page article in today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Friend of Michael Brown loses round as court rules his lawsuit should be tossed”: Robert Patrick of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court reversed two of its own judges Monday and said that a civil suit filed by a friend who witnessed the 2014 fatal shooting of Michael Brown should be thrown out.”

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

“High Court Stamps Public Access Broadcaster as Private”: Gina Carrano and Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service have this report.

And Colin Lecher of The Verge reports that “First Amendment constraints don’t apply to private platforms, Supreme Court affirms; The case had caused concern for some online speech advocates.”

“Justices Dismiss Appeal in Virginia Racial Gerrymandering Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Laura Vozzella of The Washington Post report that “High court dismisses challenge to findings of racial gerrymandering in Virginia.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rules against Republicans in Virginia dispute over use of race in drawing election maps.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court hands Dems a win in Va. racial gerrymandering case.”

Graham Moomaw of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “U.S. Supreme Court dismisses Va. House GOP’s appeal in racial gerrymandering case.”

Marie Albiges of The Virginian-Pilot reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules that Virginia’s redrawn legislative districts will stand for election.”

Marie Albiges of The Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia reports that “U.S. Supreme Court dismisses Virginia redistricting case.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Virginia Republicans lose in U.S. Supreme Court racial gerrymandering case.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court blocks suit over racially gerrymandered districts in Virginia.”

Ariane de Vogue, Ryan Nobles, and Devan Cole and CNN report that “Supreme Court hands Democrats a win in Virginia racial gerrymander case.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Virginia to use new Democrat-friendly district map after SCOTUS ruling in gerrymandering case.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court hands Virginia Democrats a win in gerrymandering case.”

Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Tosses Virginia Gerrymandering Appeal.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “SCOTUS Just Killed Off Virginia’s Racial Gerrymander. Its Decision Will Affect Elections for Years to Come.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court strikes a small but significant blow against gerrymandering; Virginia may have free and fair elections for the first time in nearly a decade.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: A search for the elusive end of the term.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Upholds Virginia’s Ban on Uranium Mining”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court upholds Virginia’s decades-old ban on uranium mining.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Backs Virginia Ban on Uranium Mining; Justices, in splintered ruling, affirm the power of states to regulate mining on private lands.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court allows Virginia to block mining of nation’s largest uranium deposit.”

Andrew Cain of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Virginia’s right to ban uranium mining.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court sides with Virginia in uranium mining ban case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Virginia ban on uranium mining upheld by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Virginia Uranium-Mining Ban Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Virginia wins uranium mining ban battle in Supreme Court; The opinion highlighted sharp divisions among justices about how they should evaluate lawmaker motivations.”

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Virginia Ban on Uranium Mining Gets High Court Backing.”

“The Court’s Unpolitical Conservatives; Two rulings show the varieties of originalist legal interpretation”: This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Affirms Exception to Double Jeopardy in a Case With Implications for Trump Associates”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “In ruling with implications for Trump’s pardon power, Supreme Court continues to allow state and federal prosecutions for same offense.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Sometimes, you can be tried twice for the same crime, Supreme Court rules.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Both Federal and State Prosecution for Same Act; High court reaffirms past double-jeopardy rulings after several justices raised concerns in recent years.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds ‘double jeopardy’ standard that could blunt impact of potential Trump pardons.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules states, feds can prosecute for the same crime.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court upholds rule allowing state, federal charges.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court declines to expand ‘double jeopardy’ protections.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Expand Double-Jeopardy Protections.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court declines to change double jeopardy rule in a case with Manafort implications; Trump’s former campaign manager might have been helped if the case involving an Alabama man on gun and robbery charges had been overturned.”

Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court says person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for same conduct.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court ruling deals potential blow to Paul Manafort as he battles state charges.”

Josh Gerstein and Natasha Bertrand of Politico report that “Supreme Court rules in case watched for impact on Trump pardons.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules defendants can be tried on state and federal charges, potentially impacting Manafort.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “RBG and Neil Gorsuch Teaming Up Couldn’t Stop a Bad Ruling in a Big Double Jeopardy Case.”

And The New York Sun has published an editorial titled “Ginsburg, Gorsuch — and Gamble.”

“Cakes, gerrymandering, Ginsburg and Thomas: Takeaways from a busy day at the Supreme Court.” Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Thomas urges Supreme Court to reverse ‘demonstrably erroneous decisions'”: Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill has this report.

“What we know so far: Kavanaugh’s claim to originalism not borne out.” Sydney Black has this guest post at the “SCOTUS OA” blog.

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

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702. 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. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275. Justices Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh joined Justice Gorsuch’s opinion. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined, concurring in the judgment. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch each issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument at this link.

4. And Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, No. 18-281. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“State Sovereign Immunity does Not Apply in Inter Partes Review proceedings”: Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog.

And at the “IPWatchdog” blog, Eileen McDermott has a post titled “Federal Circuit to University of Minnesota: No State Sovereign Immunity For You.”

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

“Supreme Court decisions could affect makeup of Congress for years; Redistricting, census questions among big-ticket items left on docket”: Todd Ruger of Roll Call has this report.

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

“The Citizenship Question Could Cost California And Texas A Seat In Congress; The census could fail to count millions of people if the Supreme Court allows the new question to be added”: Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux of FiveThirtyEight has this report.

“Debunking the Court’s Latest Death-Penalty Obsession: The conservative majority complains that capital-defense lawyers are making up claims at the last minute; It’s wrong.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.