“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: From the T-shirt shop to the high seas.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court strikes down violent criminal provision, rules against newspaper seeking food stamps data”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court says law imposing extra prison time for ‘crime of violence’ is too vague.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says tough gun law is unconstitutionally vague, dividing Trump picks Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court invalidates part of law aimed at preventing gun violence.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes down stiff firearms penalties.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Gorsuch sides with liberals in shooting down tougher sentences for gun crimes.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Gorsuch sides with liberal justices in finding gun law to be ‘vague.’”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Nixes Sentencing Law as Unconstitutionally Vague.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh Just Fought Over the Rights of the Accused. Gorsuch Won.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “So why did Gorsuch just vote with the four liberal justices in a 5-4 decision? The man just doesn’t like the government. At all.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Davis, No. 18-431, at this link.

“John Roberts and his mixed record on the First Amendment”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Barring Vulgar Trademarks”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with ‘subversive’ clothing designer in First Amendment case.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules L.A. clothing maker can trademark ‘scandalous’ brand name.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks; The decision is a win for California clothing designer’s streetwear brand, FUCT.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “F-word wins in Supreme Court free speech case on trademark protection for ‘immoral, scandalous’ material.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article headlined “FUCT wins: Supreme Court rules against ban on immoral, scandalous trademarks.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court strikes down ‘scandalous’ part of trademark law.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court allows foul language trademarks in F-word case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Throws Out Federal Curb on Vulgar Trademarks.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court allows trademark for F-word soundalike clothing brand; A law banning registration of trademarks that are ‘scandalous’ or ‘immoral’ was struck down in a case involving the FUCT brand.”

Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan of CNN reports that “Supreme Court says law banning registration of ‘scandalous’ trademarks violates First Amendment.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court strikes down ban on scandalous trademarks, in dispute over ‘FUCT’ clothing line.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “SCOTUS strikes down ban on ‘scandalous’ and ‘immoral’ trademarks.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court strikes down provision on ‘immoral’ trademarks.”

Timothy B. Lee of Ars Technica has a report headlined “SCOTUS: Ban on ‘FUCT’ trademark registration violates First Amendment; Congress can’t ban registration of ‘immoral’ trademarks, Supreme Court rules.”

Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ban on Scandalous Marks Given the Bird by SCOTUS.”

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Scandalous Trademark Registrations; Erik Brunetti, founder of the ‘FUCT’ clothing line, prevails against the contention that the government shouldn’t have to subsidize distasteful marks.”

In commentary, Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “‘Scandalous’ Speech Is Protected: The Supreme Court hands the Trademark Office another defeat.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “You Can Trademark Whatever Words You Want Now; The Supreme Court takes a big step toward an absolute view of free speech by allowing the registration of a ‘scandalous’ clothing line name.”

Also online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Stephen L. Carter has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Protects Words It Is Embarrassed to Use; The court is correct on the merits, but the law can do nothing about the coarsening of popular culture.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Naughty Trademarks Ruling Shows Why It Must Also Kill Partisan Gerrymandering.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, at this link.

“Supreme Court to Hear Insurers’ Suit on Obamacare”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to consider whether federal government owes billions to health-care insurers.”

Brent Kendall and Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Takes Case on ACA Risk-Sharing Payments; High court to consider insurer claims for billions in Affordable Care Act funds.”

Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to hear insurers’ bid for $12 billion in Obamacare money.”

Tami Luhby of CNN reports that “Supreme Court to consider $12 billion lawsuit over Obamacare payments to health insurance companies.”

Paul Demko of Politico reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare cases with billions of dollars at stake.”

And Peter Sullivan of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to hear ObamaCare case on whether insurers are owed billions.”

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