“Why a Government Lawyer Argued Against Giving Immigrant Kids Toothbrushes; The sheer effrontery of the government’s argument may be explained, but not excused, by its long backstory”: Ken White has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Oklahoma Supreme Court vacancy draws seven applicants, mostly judges and Republicans”: Chris Casteel has this front page article in today’s edition of The Oklahoman.

“Records: Louisiana Supreme Court justice was subject of FBI probe — and he apologized; Jefferson Hughes III’s ‘improper relationship’ prompted outrage amid child welfare battle.” John Simerman, Andrea Gallo, and Katie Moore have this front page article in today’s edition of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

“New Book Traces How Partisanship Has Reshaped The Supreme Court”: This audio segment featuring Carl Hulse appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Activists: Supreme Court’s precedent changing rulings could sway courts on right to vote in D.C.” Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“Census, redistricting top remaining Supreme Court cases”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court set to deliver ruling on census citizenship question.”

“Who Gets to Sit on the Supreme Court?” Evan Thomas has this review of Carl Hulse‘s new book — “Confirmation Bias: Inside Washington’s War Over the Supreme Court, From Scalia’s Death to Justice Kavanaugh” — online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court set to decide major census, electoral maps cases”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“New York City limits on transporting guns eased in effort to get Supreme Court challenge dismissed”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court offers gun-possession loophole for illegal immigrants; Decision could upend thousands of convictions.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sides with immigrant in gun possession case.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Backs Immigrant Unaware of Illegal Status.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Andrew Fleischman has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Just Showed a Way Forward on Criminal Justice Reform.”

“This Supreme Court Decision Should Worry the EPA and FDA; The justices upheld the ability of Congress to give federal agencies discretion, but clouds are gathering for the administrative state”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Flowers, Crosses, Clauses, and Oaths: Present-tense SCOTUS decision analysis that reaches all the way back to the Magna Carta for context.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick, with guests Mark Joseph Stern, Jed Shugerman, and Andrew Kent.

“John Roberts the Institutionalist?” Gillian Metzger has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

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

“Federal Court Weighs Border Wall Funding Case; Appeals court must decide whether projects using funds not appropriated by Congress can proceed”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Trump administration asks court to allow wall construction to begin.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “9th Circuit Court struggles with ‘ambiguous’ law on border wall emergency.”

Priscilla Alvarez of CNN reports that “Appeals panel grapples with border wall funding case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Court seems split on Trump border wall request.”

Helen Christophi of Courthouse News Service reports that “Trump’s Emergency Wall Funding Focus of Ninth Circuit Battle.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted on YouTube at this link the video of Thursday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel.

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘We break no new legal ground.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Excluding Black Jurors in Curtis Flowers Case Violated Constitution, Supreme Court Rules”: 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 “The Supreme Court tossed Curtis Flowers’s death-row conviction, ruling it was racially biased.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Curtis Flowers murder conviction is overturned; Supreme Court cites bias against black defendant in Mississippi.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court overturns conviction of Curtis Flowers, tried 6 times for murder, citing racism in jury selection.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule Against Racial Bias in Jury Selection; Justices vote 7-2 to overturn murder conviction of black defendant in Mississippi.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court overturns conviction for black man over race discrimination.”

In today’s edition of The Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi, Jimmie E. Gates has a front page article headlined “Curtis Flowers’ conviction overturned: Family, lawyer elated. Widower of victim angry.”

Anita Lee of The Sun Herald of Biloxi, Mississippi has an article headlined “Will Curtis Flowers be tried a 7th time? Wife of prosecutor Doug Evans speaks out.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court tosses black man’s murder conviction over racial bias.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Citing racial bias, U.S. high court tosses black man’s murder conviction.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Throws Out Curtis Flowers Death Sentence, Citing Jury Selection Bias.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules for black death row inmate over prosecutor’s racial bias; The court sent the case back to Mississippi for further proceedings.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Supreme Court sides with Mississippi death row inmate in jury discrimination case.”

Adam Shaw of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court throws out murder conviction of black inmate as Kavanaugh, Gorsuch split again.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court throws out death sentence of Mississippi inmate.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Conviction Of Man On Death Row In Mississippi.”

In commentary, today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial titled “A Blow Against Racism in Jury Selection: The Supreme Court took a Mississippi prosecutor to task for repeatedly excluding black jurors from a murder trial.”

Online at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a post titled “Clarence Thomas’s Astonishing Opinion on a Racist Mississippi Prosecutor.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Brett Kavanaugh’s Latest Opinion Protects Black Defendants Against Racist Prosecutors.”

“‘Most of Government Is Unconstitutional’: Did the Supreme Court just suggest that it is prepared to agree with that statement?” Law professor Nicholas Bagley will have this essay in the Sunday Review section of this upcoming Sunday’s edition of The New York Times.

“In Property Rights Case, Justices Sharply Debate Power of Precedent”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court’s liberals and conservatives clash again over retaining precedent.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court bolsters rights for developers and property owners in California and elsewhere.”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Sides With Property Owners in Local Land-Use Case; In 5-4 decision, high court eases property owners’ ability to challenge local regulations in federal court.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Conservative victory: Supreme Court gives property owners fast track to challenge government takings.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court overturns decades of precedent in property case; Liberals question what case is next to go.”

Jason Nark of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “N.E. Pennsylvania woman wins U.S. Supreme Court case to keep grave seekers off her land.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has an article headlined “Justices: Landowner can take property case to federal court.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Conservative U.S. justices draw criticism by overruling precedent again.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Overturns Precedent, Backs Property-Rights Suits.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Elena Kagan becomes latest liberal justice to sound alarm on precedent.”

Brooke Singman of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court sides with property owners in fight over cemetery mandate.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases.”

And Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire reports that “Justices overturn precedent in win for landowners.”

“Strict Scrutiny: A podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Hosted by Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, Jaime Santos, and Kate Shaw.” This new podcast launched today, produced by Melody Rowell who formerly produced the “First Mondays” podcast.

You can access the first episode via this link.

“The Supreme Court wrongly blesses a religious symbol on public property”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Justice Thomas just handed down an opinion that would make it legal to kick black people off juries”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at ThinkProgress.

“Where’s the Supreme Court’s Census Decision?” Ed Kilgore has this post at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York magazine.

“The partisan players transforming the Supreme Court”: Online at The Washington Post, Joan Biskupic has this review of Carl Hulse‘s new book, “Confirmation Bias: Inside Washington’s War Over the Supreme Court, From Scalia’s Death to Justice Kavanaugh.”

And online at The Boston Globe, David Shribman’s review of this same book is headlined “Carl Hulse’s latest examines how the highest court hit its lowest point.”

“Is The Supreme Court About To Give Haters Of The ‘Deep State’ What They Want?” Nina Totenberg of NPR has this report.

“What Supreme Court justices talk about when they talk about reversing milestone cases”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

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

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17-9572. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, No. 18-457. And Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Rehaif v. United States, No. 17-9560. And Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Elena Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. This case was argued and reargued this term, and you can access the oral arguments here and here.

“On 4-3 vote, Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds state’s lame-duck laws limiting power of Democratic governor”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued today.

And in other coverage, Briana Reilly of The Cap Times of Madison, Wisconsin reports that “Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholds lame-duck laws.”

“Religious Monuments Are Fine Now — If They’re Old; The Supreme Court’s Peace Cross decision is very messy”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“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.