“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.

“Supreme Court rules police don’t need warrant to use blood drawn from unconscious drunk driver”: Richard Wolf and Kristine Phillips of USA Today have this report.

Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “In Wisconsin case, U.S. Supreme Court says police can draw blood from unconscious drivers without warrant.”

Ed Treleven of The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin drunken driving case may affect similar cases awaiting ruling.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court OKs blood draws from unconscious drivers without warrants.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules cops can draw blood from unconscious drivers.”

And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Gives Green Light on Warrantless Blood Draw.”

“McConnell willing to vote on new Dem president’s Supreme Court nominee”: Burgess Everett of Politico has this report.

And Alexander Bolton of The Hill reports that “McConnell pledges to work with Democratic president on Supreme Court vacancy.”

“The latest chapter in the Gorsuch-Kavanaugh saga is the most revealing yet”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Top conservative calls for impeachment of Chief Justice Roberts”: Stephen Dinan and Dave Boyer of The Washington Times have this report.

And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Conservatives blast Roberts as turncoat; In 5-4 decisions on federal rules and citizenship question, chief justice joins court liberals and frustrates the right.”

“Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court puts census citizenship question on hold.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court refuses to approve citizenship question on 2020 census.”

Brent Kendall, Jess Bravin, and Janet Adamy of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Blocks Citizenship Question From 2020 Census for Now; Trump administration’s official explanation for adding the question ‘seems to have been contrived,’ according to the majority opinion.”

Richard Wolf and Kate Cimini of USA Today report that “Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question for now, demands more fact-finding at lower court.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court halts citizenship question on 2020 census.”

Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “High court keeps citizenship question off census for now.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Trump fumes as Supreme Court blocks census citizenship question.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Thwarts Trump on Census, Prompting Him to Seek Delay.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court tosses citizenship question from 2020 census forms, a victory for Democratic states; The court found that while the Commerce Department has a right to reinstate the question, it did not provide an adequate justification for doing so.”

Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan of CNN report that “Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question in setback for Trump admin.”

Ronn Blitzer and Adam Shaw of Fox News report that “Trump seeks 2020 census delay after Supreme Court blocks citizenship question.”

Josh Gerstein and Ted Hesson of Politico report that “Supreme Court deals blow to Trump’s push to add citizenship question to census.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules against Trump on census citizenship question.”

In commentary, Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an editorial titled “The Supreme Court Is Not Buying the Census Excuses; It noted a ‘disconnect’ between the Trump administration’s stated reason for including a citizenship question on the census form and the actual rationale for doing so.”

Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Contradictions of John Roberts: The Chief draws a road map for politicizing administrative law.”

Online at The New York Times, Emily Bazelon has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Isn’t as Naïve as Trump Hoped; The chief justice didn’t buy the explanation for putting a citizenship question on the census.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, law professor Leah Litman has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s census ruling is a victory for truth and the rule of the law.”

Online at Politico Magazine, law professor Richard Primus has an essay titled “John Roberts Just Called Out the Trump Administration for Lying; Will he have the stomach to do it again?”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Roberts Won’t Let Trump Get Away With a Lie in Census Case; The Supreme Court blocks the citizenship question for now, but might allow it if the Commerce Department is honest about its motives.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “John Roberts Rejects the Census Citizenship Question Because Trump Officials Lied About It.”

And also online at Slate, law professor Richard L Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has a jurisprudence essay titled “Donald Trump Is Promising to Fight the Census Case. That Might Actually Work.”

“After 14 Years, Chief Justice Roberts Takes Charge”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Chief Justice John Roberts is exercising the power he’s craved”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Supreme Court clerk isn’t a lowly position. It’s a pathway to power.” Columnist Michael McGough has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Supreme Court to rehear Creek reservation case in the next term”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.

And Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World reports that “Supreme Court asks for more argument in ‘Indian Country’ death penalty case, to go on court’s fall calendar.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘With respect but deep sadness.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

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

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined, in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210. Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2 & 3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, together with Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument in Rucho via this link and in Lamone via this link.

4. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966. Justice Thomas issued an opinion, in which Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer issued an opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Lastly, the Court has announced that Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107, will be reargued next Term. You can access this Term’s argument of the case via this link.

“A momentous change may be upon the Supreme Court”: Law professors Leah Litman and Seth Davis have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Newest woman on state high court chose Georgia over D.C. legal career; Justice Warren guest speaker for Statesboro Rotary”: Al Hackle of The Statesboro (Ga.) Herald has this report.

“Supreme Court rules for sex offender in child pornography case testing power of judges, juries”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules jury trial required in some supervised release revocations.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Conservative U.S. Justice Gorsuch again sides with liberals in criminal case.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Gorsuch sides with liberal bloc once more, in sex offender case.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Over Alito’s Fuming Dissent, Gorsuch and the Liberals Protect the Right to Trial by Jury.”

Also online at Slate, law professor Leah Litman has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch Is No Friend to Criminal Defendants.”

And at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine, Ed Kilgore has a post titled “Gorsuch Gives SCOTUS Liberals a Win in Two Criminal-Law Cases.”

“John Roberts Isn’t the Conservative You Thought He Was; The chief justice joins with liberal justices out of respect for precedent; Does this tell us how he might vote on abortion?” Jay Michaelson has this essay online at The Daily Beast.

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Liquor Law”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Alcohol-License Regulations; At issue were rules requiring retailers to be state residents for two years.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Tennessee liquor retail regulations.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Voids Residency Rule for Liquor Store Owners.”

Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan of CNN report that “Supreme Court strikes down Tennessee residency requirement for liquor licenses.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hands Total Wine, Other Out-Of-State Liquor Retailers A Big Win.”

And in commentary, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Sobriety About the Commerce Clause: The High Court strikes down a protectionist state liquor law.”

“The Supreme Court should adhere to precedent. Unless it’s bad precedent.” Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court Limits Agency Power, a Goal of the Right”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules in favor of federal agency expertise on ambiguous regulations.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Leaves U.S. Agencies’ Power Intact, With Qualifications; Ruling allows federal agencies to keep interpreting regulations but chips away at that precedent.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court won’t strip federal agencies of all power to interpret regulations, a top priority of conservatives.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court upholds precedents on deference to agencies.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court chips away at federal agency power.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Rebuffs Businesses, Won’t Topple Regulation Precedent.”

Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court gives Marine seeking VA benefits second chance in agency power case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Justices uphold precedent backing government regulators.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity.”

In commentary, Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “The Case of Excessive Deference: Chief Justice Roberts joins the liberals in deferring to regulators.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s Administrative Law War Previews Abortion Battle; When Chief Justice Roberts rules in favor of a long-standing precedent, it should be headline news.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Kagan just scored a shocking victory over the forces of anti-government nihilism; She held the line.”

“Clarence Thomas’s Unprecedented America: The Justice has always shown a disregard for precedent, but with a shift in Supreme Court personnel, undoing progress could be the law of the land.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.

“Supreme Court to issue census, electoral map rulings on Thursday”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court set to issue most high-profile decisions of term.”

“Supreme Court Justices Continue To Struggle With Precedent”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“U.S. Supreme Court’s business-friendly reputation takes a hit”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court in its term that concludes this week was not quite as business friendly as it has been in recent years, with President Donald Trump’s appointee Brett Kavanaugh writing a pivotal one of the batch of rulings that defied corporate interests.”