“John Roberts pulls out the thesaurus for one of Trump’s nearly 11,000 lies”: Columnist Dana Milbank has this essay online at The Washington Post.

Access online the new installment of MoloLamken LLP’s Supreme Court Business Briefing: At this link.

“Trump’s Supreme Court Picks, While Aligned, Haven’t Moved in Lockstep; Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh staked out differences in tone and priorities in just-completed term”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bid to Revive Alabama Abortion Ban”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court won’t revive Alabama ban on second-trimester abortion procedure.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear Alabama’s defense of abortion ban struck down last year.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects review of Alabama abortion law.”

Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “U.S. Supreme Court won’t take up Alabama abortion procedure ban.”

Mark Sherman and Kim Chandler of The Associated Press report that “Justices won’t revive Alabama ban on abortion procedure.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court declines Alabama bid to revive abortion restriction.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Bid to Bar Common Abortion Method.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court won’t hear appeal to restore Alabama abortion law; In 2016, Alabama’s Legislature voted to ban a procedure known as dilation and evacuation but the law was blocked by the courts before it took effect.”

Caroline Kelly and Ariane de Vogue of CNN report that “Clarence Thomas urges Supreme Court to revisit abortion precedents as justices dodge another case.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s request to reconsider abortion ban that was blocked.”

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rejects bid to restore Alabama abortion law.”

This blog’s earlier coverage of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling disdainfully striking down the abortion ban can be accessed here.

“Georgia abortion providers file lawsuit challenging ‘heartbeat’ law”: Maya T. Prabhu of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

And at that newspaper’s “Political Insider” blog, Jim Galloway has a post titled “SisterSong v. Brian Kemp is part lawsuit, part feminist manifesto.”

You can view the complaint initiating suit at this link.

“Clarence Thomas, the Court’s Trumpiest Justice, Is Having the Time of His Life”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Recap Of The Supreme Court Term”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg and Tom Goldstein appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Inside Brett Kavanaugh’s First Term on the Supreme Court”: Tessa Berenson of Time magazine has this report.

“Political Cases Test Roberts’s Efforts to Keep the Supreme Court Above It All”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Advocacy Before the Eleventh Circuit: A Clerk’s Perspective.” Kevin Golembiewski and Jessica Arden Ettinger have this article in the new issue of the University of Miami Law Review.

“Supreme Court Wrap-Up: a Slate of Conservative, If Less Predictable, Rulings; Surprising coalitions emerged even as Justice Kavanaugh bolstered the majority bloc.” Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

U.S. Supreme Court calls for reargument in Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107, so that my failure to previously recommend a podcast about that case can be remedied while it still matters: Speculation no doubt abounds concerning why the Supreme Court yesterday ordered reargument in a case raising the issue whether nearly half of Oklahoma remains native American tribal land.

The easiest guess is that the Court must have been evenly divided because Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was recused from the case, but that some of the Justices remain open to benefiting from whatever persuasion reargument might offer.

Another guess is that, given Lisa S. Blatt‘s unparalleled record of representing winning parties before the Court, the Justices have decided to give her a second chance to argue any case where the initial vote ends up with her client on the losing side, in the event that some unfortunate error has been made.

Or, perhaps the Court was puzzled with my failure to recommend in a timely manner that readers of this blog listen to the “This Land” podcast that focuses on this very case. I started listening last week and certainly found it interesting enough to keep listening. But, once the Supreme Court resolves this case, no doubt the podcast will seem far less relevant to many who might otherwise enjoy it. Ordering reargument in the case enables the podcast to remain relevant. I hope you give it a listen to learn more about this apparently quite difficult case.

“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: 20 Thoughts from Maryland.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.

“Abortions can continue at Planned Parenthood in St. Louis under order from state panel”: Jack Suntrup of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this report.

And Sabrina Tavernise and Timothy Williams of The New York Times report that “Lone Missouri Abortion Clinic Can Stay Open in Dispute with State.”

“John Roberts Played This Supreme Court Term Perfectly; He will move the law as far to the right as he possibly can without breaking the court”: Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Clarence Thomas Is Actually Right About Supreme Court Precedent”: Law professor Eric Segall has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“At first, Dershowitz welcomed this Epstein-related lawsuit. Now he wants it tossed out.” In today’s edition of The Miami Herald, Julie K. Brown has a front page article that begins, “Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, accused in a lawsuit of having sex with a 16-year-old girl nearly 20 years ago, asked a federal judge on Tuesday to throw out her court filing — one that he had publicly asked for and ‘welcomed’ as a means to vindicate himself and prove that the woman has been lying.”

“Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch deliver for Trump”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court Green-Lights Gerrymandering and Blocks Census Citizenship Question”: Adam Liptak has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Mark Z. Barabak of The Los Angeles Times have an article headlined “Supreme Court’s approval of partisan gerrymandering raises 2020 election stakes.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall have a front page article headlined “Supreme Court Declines to Set Limits on Political Gerrymandering; Conservative justices say such cases present political questions that courts can’t decide.”

In today’s edition of USA Today, Richard Wolf has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court says federal courts cannot strike down partisan gerrymandering.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court rules federal courts can’t police partisan gerrymandering.”

In today’s edition of The Baltimore Sun, Luke Broadwater has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court rules in Maryland case that courts have no role in deciding partisan gerrymandering.”

In today’s edition of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, Will Doran has a front page article headlined “The Supreme Court won’t overturn NC’s congressional maps; Will lawmakers act?”

Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press have a report headlined “Justices: Partisan gerrymandering none of our business.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “In major elections ruling, U.S. Supreme Court allows partisan map drawing.”

Greg Stohr and Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Backs Partisan Voting Maps, Opening Path for More.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court allows gerrymandering in North Carolina, Maryland, setting back reform efforts.”

Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court allows severe partisan gerrymandering to continue.”

Ronn Blitzer and Bill Mears of Fox News report that “Supreme Court says federal judges have no role in policing gerrymandering, leaving political maps in place.”

Josh Gerstein and Steven Shepard of Politico have a report headlined “Justices: Federal courts can’t police partisan gerrymandering.”

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court finds that courts can’t rule on partisan gerrymandering cases.”

“Why the Supreme Court’s Rulings Have Profound Implications for American Politics: The justices handed Republicans a key victory by refusing to halt even the most extreme gerrymandered maps; But Democrats may have a win on blocking the citizenship question from the census.” Michael Wines has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in 11 new cases.

In Harris v. West Ala. Women’s Ctr., No. 18–837, Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the denial of certiorari.

And in McGee v. McFadden, No. 18–7277, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari.