“Roy Moore Is Running for the Senate Again, and Alabama Republicans Are Not Happy”: Charles Bethea has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Not enough evidence to hold Williamson psychiatrist liable in woman’s suicide, Supreme Court rules”: Elaina Sauber of The Tennessean has this report on a ruling (consisting of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion) that the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued yesterday.

Tennessee’s highest court also issued a news release titled “Tennessee Supreme Court Holds Evidence Not Enough to Hold Man Liable for Woman’s Suicide.”

“‘I’m scared to death of what the Supreme Court might do'”: Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire has an article that begins, “A new case on the Supreme Court’s docket has experts on edge about potential consequences for environmental cleanups across the country.”

“Trump can block funding to clinics that make abortion referrals, appeals court rules”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Allows New Rules Blocking Family-Planning Funds for Abortion Providers; Planned Parenthood will be most affected, though court order isn’t the final word.”

Ariana Eunjung Cha of The Washington Post reports that “Trump administration’s abortion ‘gag rule’ can take effect, court rules.”

Joel Connelly of SeattlePI reports that “The Trump abortion ‘gag rule’ can take effect in Washington, appellate court rules.”

Gene Johnson of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court allows Trump abortion rules to take effect.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court lets Trump abortion referral ‘gag rule’ go into effect.”

Dan Berman of CNN reports that “9th Circuit allows abortion clinic referral restrictions to take effect.”

Bill Mears and Alex Pappas of Fox News report that “Appeals court lifts injunctions on family planning rules, in win for Trump administration.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico reports that “Appeals court says Trump family planning restrictions can take effect.”

And Brianna Sacks of BuzzFeed News reports that “A New Ruling Could Leave Thousands Of Low-Income Americans Without Access To Abortion And Birth Control.”

You can access today’s per curiam order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“How A Supreme Court Ruling Could Supercharge Republicans’ Advantages In The States”: Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux of FiveThirtyEight has this report.

“Never Jam Today”: At the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation, Adrian Vermeule has a guest post that begins, “Ever since I started law school in 1990, almost thirty years ago, I’ve been hearing that the Court’s libertarian-legalist conservatives would definitely invalidate some statute or other on nondelegation grounds, any day now, without question.”

“Supremes’ FCC Case Remand Could Weaken Commission’s Defense of Decisions; Vacates lower court decision deferring to commission”: John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable has this report.

“Puerto Rico Board Appointment Dispute Gets Supreme Court Review”: Greg Stohr, Michelle Kaske, and Steven Church of Bloomberg News have this report.

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Adnan Syed case: Supreme Court extension offers hint at possible appeal strategy for ‘Serial’ subject.” Colin Campbell of The Baltimore Sun has this report.

“How Masterpiece Cakeshop Fell Short: Lower courts are still taking a cramped approach to claims of artistic freedom.” John Bursch will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Sustains Executive Power in Sex Offender Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds sex offender rules, but separation of powers battle to continue.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds power of executive branch to apply sex offender law retroactively.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justices uphold sex offender registry.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds federal sex offender law.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds the scope of federal sex offender registration law in case testing ‘nondelegation doctrine.’”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Alito joins with liberals in ruling for sex offender law.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Ready to Take a Wrecking Ball to the Entire Federal Bureaucracy.”

Online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Justice Alito just wrote the most terrifying sentence to appear in a Supreme Court opinion in years; Stephen Bannon is about to see his dreams come true.”

And at “Above the Law,” Elie Mystal has a post titled “The Supreme Court Drew Its Wall Battle Lines In Gundy v. U.S.; The fight over non-delegation doctrine is so real and I’m here for it.”

“Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules that Maryland ‘Peace Cross’ honoring military dead may remain on public land.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court says 40-foot Maryland cross can stand as war memorial.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules That 40-Foot Cross Can Remain on Public Land; Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that by maintaining the cross, the state places Christianity above other faiths.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court allows cross on state land despite challenge over church-state separation.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Peace Cross can stay, Supreme Court rules.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Maryland ‘peace cross’ can stand on public land, U.S. high court rules.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs 40-Foot Cross in Maryland Intersection.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules giant cross can remain on public land; The ruling reverses a lower court decision on the 40-foot-high WWI memorial in suburban Washington, D.C.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Supreme Court rules ‘peace cross’ in Maryland can remain.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court rules government-maintained cross doesn’t violate Constitution.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules cross at state-run WWI memorial can remain.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules A 40-Foot WWI Memorial Shaped As A Cross Can Stand On Public Land.”

in commentary, Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Justices Liberate a Public Cross; A step toward reviving the proper meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Online at The Washington Post, columnist Harry Litman has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Peace Cross decision reveals deep fissures over the establishment clause.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “This Cross Is a Monument, and Now a Landmark for the Supreme Court; A religious symbol on public land isn’t automatically unconstitutional, the justices say; You have to look at the context.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Giant Cross Compromise Will Erode the Separation of Church and State.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The religious right is getting played by the Supreme Court; If you want to win big in the Supreme Court, it helps to be rich.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘Quite prolific in our writing.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“U.S. Supreme Court sides with Rensselaer County official; Decision says McDonough’s suit against special prosecutor wasn’t filed too late”: Dan Freedman of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Revives Suit Against NY Prosecutor.”

“Riviera Beach: Riviera Beach sought to use eminent domain to take away 5,500 people’s homes; Fane Lozman tried to stop them.” You can access this week’s first episode of the “Bleeped” podcast via this link.

“There’s a Legal Loophole That May Leave Some of Rock’s Greatest Riffs Up for Grabs”: Vernon Silver of Bloomberg Businessweek has an article that begins, “In a little-noticed moment during Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven plagiarism trial, a Guitar God inadvertently revealed that his industry’s most famous (and valuable) tunes were up for grabs.”

“261 Days to Gundy”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Equality of Opportunity and the Schoolhouse Gate”: In the June 2019 issue of The Yale Law Journal, law professors Michelle Adams and Derek W. Black have this review of law professor Justin Driver‘s book, “The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind.”

“The Curiously Nonrandom Assignment of Sixth Circuit Senior Judges”: Clark Hildabrand has this essay at the Kentucky Law Journal Online.

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

1. Justice Elena Kagan announced the judgment of the Court in Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, and issued an opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh did not take part in the case. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in part in American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., No. 17-1717. Justice Breyer issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. And Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705. Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Kavanaugh issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Appeals court rules for LePage in lawsuit by former House Speaker Mark Eves; The 1st Circuit judges find that the former governor has immunity from the claims, but 3 of them say he did violate Eves’ rights in getting him fired from a charter school post”: Dennis Hoey of The Portland (Me.) Press Herald has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc First Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“The Supreme Court Is Showing an Instinct for Self-Preservation, at Least Until Next Year’s Election; The court has passed on contentious cases about abortion and the rights of same-sex couples; Will it now drop the census case?” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.