“Puerto Rico Board Appointment Dispute Gets Supreme Court Review”: Greg Stohr, Michelle Kaske, and Steven Church of Bloomberg News have this report.

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

“Adnan Syed case: Supreme Court extension offers hint at possible appeal strategy for ‘Serial’ subject.” Colin Campbell of The Baltimore Sun has this report.

“How Masterpiece Cakeshop Fell Short: Lower courts are still taking a cramped approach to claims of artistic freedom.” John Bursch will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Sustains Executive Power in Sex Offender Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds sex offender rules, but separation of powers battle to continue.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds power of executive branch to apply sex offender law retroactively.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justices uphold sex offender registry.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds federal sex offender law.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds the scope of federal sex offender registration law in case testing ‘nondelegation doctrine.’”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Alito joins with liberals in ruling for sex offender law.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Are Ready to Take a Wrecking Ball to the Entire Federal Bureaucracy.”

Online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Justice Alito just wrote the most terrifying sentence to appear in a Supreme Court opinion in years; Stephen Bannon is about to see his dreams come true.”

And at “Above the Law,” Elie Mystal has a post titled “The Supreme Court Drew Its Wall Battle Lines In Gundy v. U.S.; The fight over non-delegation doctrine is so real and I’m here for it.”

“Supreme Court Allows 40-Foot Peace Cross on State Property”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules that Maryland ‘Peace Cross’ honoring military dead may remain on public land.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court says 40-foot Maryland cross can stand as war memorial.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules That 40-Foot Cross Can Remain on Public Land; Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that by maintaining the cross, the state places Christianity above other faiths.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court allows cross on state land despite challenge over church-state separation.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Peace Cross can stay, Supreme Court rules.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court upholds cross on public land in Maryland.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Maryland ‘peace cross’ can stand on public land, U.S. high court rules.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs 40-Foot Cross in Maryland Intersection.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules giant cross can remain on public land; The ruling reverses a lower court decision on the 40-foot-high WWI memorial in suburban Washington, D.C.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Supreme Court rules ‘peace cross’ in Maryland can remain.”

Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court rules government-maintained cross doesn’t violate Constitution.”

Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court rules cross at state-run WWI memorial can remain.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules A 40-Foot WWI Memorial Shaped As A Cross Can Stand On Public Land.”

in commentary, Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Justices Liberate a Public Cross; A step toward reviving the proper meaning of the Establishment Clause.”

Online at The Washington Post, columnist Harry Litman has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Peace Cross decision reveals deep fissures over the establishment clause.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “This Cross Is a Monument, and Now a Landmark for the Supreme Court; A religious symbol on public land isn’t automatically unconstitutional, the justices say; You have to look at the context.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Giant Cross Compromise Will Erode the Separation of Church and State.”

And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The religious right is getting played by the Supreme Court; If you want to win big in the Supreme Court, it helps to be rich.”

“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘Quite prolific in our writing.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“U.S. Supreme Court sides with Rensselaer County official; Decision says McDonough’s suit against special prosecutor wasn’t filed too late”: Dan Freedman of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.

And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Revives Suit Against NY Prosecutor.”

“Riviera Beach: Riviera Beach sought to use eminent domain to take away 5,500 people’s homes; Fane Lozman tried to stop them.” You can access this week’s first episode of the “Bleeped” podcast via this link.

“There’s a Legal Loophole That May Leave Some of Rock’s Greatest Riffs Up for Grabs”: Vernon Silver of Bloomberg Businessweek has an article that begins, “In a little-noticed moment during Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven plagiarism trial, a Guitar God inadvertently revealed that his industry’s most famous (and valuable) tunes were up for grabs.”

“261 Days to Gundy”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Equality of Opportunity and the Schoolhouse Gate”: In the June 2019 issue of The Yale Law Journal, law professors Michelle Adams and Derek W. Black have this review of law professor Justin Driver‘s book, “The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind.”

“The Curiously Nonrandom Assignment of Sixth Circuit Senior Judges”: Clark Hildabrand has this essay at the Kentucky Law Journal Online.

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

1. Justice Elena Kagan announced the judgment of the Court in Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, and issued an opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh did not take part in the case. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in part in American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., No. 17-1717. Justice Breyer issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. And Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705. Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Kavanaugh issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Appeals court rules for LePage in lawsuit by former House Speaker Mark Eves; The 1st Circuit judges find that the former governor has immunity from the claims, but 3 of them say he did violate Eves’ rights in getting him fired from a charter school post”: Dennis Hoey of The Portland (Me.) Press Herald has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc First Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“The Supreme Court Is Showing an Instinct for Self-Preservation, at Least Until Next Year’s Election; The court has passed on contentious cases about abortion and the rights of same-sex couples; Will it now drop the census case?” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Pa. Supreme Court deadlock kills widow’s lawsuit over husband’s death during triathlon”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an article that begins, “A 3-3 deadlock on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has killed a lawsuit a widow filed over her husband’s death during the Philadelphia Insurance Triathlon.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consisted of a per curiam order, an opinion in support of affirmance, and two opinions in support of reversal (here and here).

“Minnesota Supreme Court rules stalking, mail harassment laws overly broad in cyberbully case; Decision reversed student’s cyberbullying conviction”: Rochelle Olson of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Minnesota issued today.

“Crime Hunter: Mother-in-law from hell.” In this past Sunday’s edition of The Toronto Sun, Brad Hunter had an article that begins, “Donna Adelson did not like her son-in-law. Not in the least. For 15 months she unleashed a tidal wave of invective via email to her daughter, Wendi Adelson. Dan Markel was a preeminent legal scholar, with degrees from Harvard and the University of Toronto. He was also embroiled in a bitter child custody fight with his ex.”

“Federal lawsuit hangs over Eves, LePage as private citizens; The case is the last one pending in federal court in which the former governor is a named party”: Megan Gray of The Portland (Me.) Press Herald has this article back in February 2019.

Today, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this decision in the case.

“Michael Dreeben, longtime Supreme Court lawyer who aided Mueller probe, leaving Justice Dept.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

And Darren Samuelsohn of Politico reports that “Former Mueller counsel Michael Dreeben leaving top DOJ post; Dreeben successfully fought off legal challenges to the special counsel’s appointment in federal court.”

I know that Michael is an avid reader of “How Appealing,” and I join countless others in wishing him the best in his future endeavors.

“Conservatives wait to see if Brett Kavanaugh is the justice they want him to be”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“As legal glare turns to Trump, his faith in Supreme Court may be tested”: Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters have this report.

“Ninth Circuit Committee Issues Workplace Environment Report”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release yesterday. You can access the report itself, also dated yesterday, at this link.

“Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: The Return Of The Tiger Cub; Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld, daughter of Amy ‘Tiger Mother’ Chua and Jed Rubenfeld, will clerk at the Supreme Court this coming Term — along with these other impressive young legal minds.” David Lat has this post at “Above the Law.”

“A Wild Ride of a Term with Twenty Decisions Still to Go”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.

“Lest Ye Be Judged: Review of ‘Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution’ By Myron Magnet.” Adam White has this book review in the July/August 2019 issue of Commentary magazine.

“Constitutional Text and State Sovereign Immunity”: Mike Rappaport has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Liberty and Polarization in Yesterday’s SCOTUS Opinions”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“September trial date set for accused Markel murderers”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling could favor doctors in defamation suit against Excela Health”: Rich Cholodofsky of The Tribune-Review of Greensburg, Pennsylvania has an article that begins, “Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a lawyer for Excela Health waived attorney-client privilege when he turned over a confidential document to a private media relations firm hired to oversee publicity related to allegations that patients were subjected to unnecessary cardiac procedures.”

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion and two concurring opinions (here and here).

“Child porn found by repairman can be used to prosecute computer’s owner, split Pa. Supreme Court says”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion, an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and a dissenting opinion.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg, justices and governors pay tribute to Shirley Abrahamson”: Molly Beck of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“Yes, the public’s perception of the Supreme Court matters”: Leah Litman, Joshua Matz, and Steve Vladeck have this essay online at The Washington Post.

“The Supreme Court May Erode Decades of Wins for LGBT Worker Rights; In a trio of cases this coming term, the justices will hear arguments on whether it’s legal for bosses to discriminate against LGBT employees”: Josh Eidelson of Bloomberg Businessweek has this report.

“Justice Thomas just admitted he wants to burn down the very idea that courts should obey precedent; Arson, but for the rule of law”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at ThinkProgress.

For another perspective on this subject, see here and here.