“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: What the Constitution means to me.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Is There Racist Intent Behind the Census Citizenship Question?” Cristian Farias has this post online at The New Yorker.

“A Picasso sold during Nazi flight can stay at New York’s Met: court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Jeffrey Epstein plea deal must stand, prosecutors tell sex abuse victims”: Julie K. Brown has this front page article in today’s edition of The Miami Herald.

“Lawyer Draws Outrage for Defending Lack of Toothbrushes in Border Detention”: Manny Fernandez has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Minnesota Supreme Court Holds That Nonmedia Speakers Are Fully Protected by First Amendment; Prior Minnesota precedents had said that some First Amendment protections against defamation liability applied only to media speakers”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog about a ruling that the Supreme Court of Minnesota issued today.

“The End Game Possibilities for the Census Case”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

“The Supreme Court Should Clean Up How Justices Are Noted as Joining Parts of Opinions”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“Liberals Keep Narrow Window to Win After Supreme Court Makeover”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

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

1. Justice Neil Ml Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court and issued an opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined in United States v. Haymond, No. 17-1672. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Kagan announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in large part in Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15. Chief Justice Roberts issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined in full and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh joined in part, concurring in the judgment. And Justice Kavanaugh issued an opinion, in which Justice Alito joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas, No. 18-96. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Rumors of the Non-Delegation Doctrine’s Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated”: Peter J. Wallison has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“The fight over Trump’s travel ban continues a year after Supreme Court ruling”: Danae King has this front page article in today’s edition of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.

“Supreme Court conservatives’ move to overturn precedents raises questions on Roe v. Wade”: Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News has this report.

“Torrance Catholic school case leads to rift on 9th Circuit”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has an article that begins, “Nine conservative federal appeals court judges, including four Trump appointees, insisted Tuesday that teachers at religious schools should not be allowed to sue their employers for alleged labor violations.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the dissent therefrom, at this link.

“Justice Department lawyer defends herself after viral video on child migrant treatment; In a private Facebook post, Justice Department attorney Sarah Fabian says a false impression has been created about her testimony”: Josh Lederman of NBC News has this report.

“A chief justice’s underappreciated legacy comes into focus”: Online at The Washington Post, columnist Hugh Hewitt recently had an essay that begins, “Sunday marks the 50th anniversary of the swearing in of Warren E. Burger as chief justice of the United States. Yet only now is his underappreciated legacy coming into focus.”

“Tennessee Supreme Court will decide whether there should be a limit to jury awards”: Jamie Satterfield of The Knoxville News Sentinel has an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that requires judges to override jury awards in civil lawsuits.”

“I was fired for being transgender. The Supreme Court should make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Aimee Stephens has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“U.S. Supreme Court to decide if public has free access to Georgia code”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

“What to watch for as the Supreme Court term ends”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Reopened Legal Challenge to Census Citizenship Question Throws Case Into Chaos”: Michael Wines of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes, Felicia Sonmez, and Tara Bahrampour of The Washington Post have an article headlined “As Supreme Court decision nears, lower court orders new look at census citizenship question.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Federal appeals court orders more fact-finding on Trump administration’s plan to add census citizenship question.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judge to Review Motive of Trump Administration Census Citizenship Question; Documents found on computer drives of GOP strategist Thomas Hofeller considered potentially relevant.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Appeals court grants request to reopen census citizenship inquiry.”

David McFadden of The Associated Press reports that “Federal judges send 2020 census lawsuit back to lower court.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Appeals court sends census case to lower court to review discrimination claims.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “DOJ urges definitive ruling from SCOTUS on census citizenship question.”

You can access today’s order of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Vagueness Doctrine, Delegation Doctrine, and Justice Gorsuch’s Opinion in US v. Davis”: Rick Pildes has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

“The Census Case Is Shaping Up to Be the Biggest Travesty Since Bush v. Gore”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“After long delay, U.S. Supreme Court may act on ‘Dreamers’ immigrants”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Conservative group launches million-dollar ad pushing 2020 Dems to name their judicial short list”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Ad campaign targets Dems over ‘secret’ list of potential Supreme Court picks.”

And Marianne LeVine of Politico reports that “Judicial Crisis Network pressures 2020 Dems to release their Supreme Court picks.”

You can view the ad on YouTube via this link.

“Washington owes Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch an apology”: Law professor Jonathan Turley has this essay online at The Hill.

“Supreme Court Gives Businesses Wider Protections Under FOIA; Justices, in 6-3 ruling, find the government can block private-sector financial data”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

In today’s edition of The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Jonathan Ellis and Richard Wolf have a front page article headlined “Supreme Court limits access to government records in loss for Argus Leader.”

Sarah Mearhoff of The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules against Argus Leader, says some government spending not subject to open records laws.”

Ariane de Vogue and Steve Vladeck of CNN report that “Supreme Court creates new limits to FOIA disclosure.”

And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court rules against newspaper seeking access to food stamp data.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481, at this link.

“The Travel Ban Shows What Happens When the Supreme Court Trusts Trump; A cautionary tale for the census case before the Supreme Court”: Law professors Joshua A. Geltzer and Neal K. Katyal have this essay online at The New York Times.

“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.

Programming note: On Monday, I will be away from the computer until nighttime, because during the day I will be in Salisbury, Connecticut, taking advantage of my complimentary registration to attend this event.

Also on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue opinions in argued cases starting at 10 a.m. eastern time. You can access those decisions just as soon as the Court posts them online via this link. And at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on Monday, the Court will issue an Orders List, which can be accessed very shortly after that time via this link.

Additional posts will appear here either Monday night or Tuesday morning.

“Key DC Circuit Reversal Backs Rights of Alien Detainees”: Megan Mineiro and Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service have this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued on Friday.