“A Supreme Court Abortion Case That Tests the Court Itself: What will access to abortion look like under the new conservative majority?” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

And online at The Chicago Tribune, columnist Eric Zorn has an essay titled “The Supreme Court has signaled it’s ready to spring the TRAP and gut abortion rights.”

“Congress Can Seek Trump’s Financial Records, Appeals Court Rules”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has this report.

David A. Fahrenthold, Spencer S. Hsu, and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Appeals court rules against Trump in fight with Congress over president’s accounting firm records.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Says House Can Subpoena Trump Accounting Records; Oversight committee seeking eight years of financial records for the president, his real-estate company and other entities.”

Bart Jansen and Kristine Phillips of USA Today report that “Trump’s longtime accounting firm must provide financial records to Congress, appeals court rules.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Appeals court rules House can subpoena Trump financial records.”

Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “Appeals court rules House should get Trump financial records.”

Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “U.S. court backs House request for Trump’s financial records.”

Andrew M Harris and Bob Van Voris of Bloomberg News report that “Trump Records Must Be Given to the House, Appeals Court Says.”

Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Trump loses appeal to stop House subpoena of his tax documents.”

Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Trump loses appeal to withhold financial records from Democrats; House Democrats had issued a subpoena to obtain records from the president’s accounting firm.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Court Ruled, Again, That Trump’s Accounting Firm Must Turn Over Financial Documents To House Democrats; The DC Circuit rejected President Donald Trump’s argument that the House Oversight Committee didn’t have authority to issue a subpoena to his accounting firm.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “A Trump-Appointed Judge Is Running Interference for the President on His Financial Records.”

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Trump claims Congress can’t investigate his finances; He just lost big in court; Turns out, the president is not above the law.”

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

“Abortion medication to be available at California’s college health centers under new law”: Melody Gutierrez of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Federal appeals court bars Ohio from enforcing Down syndrome abortion ban”: Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

Jessie Balmert of The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “Ohio’s Down syndrome abortion ban blocked by federal appeals court.”

Kantele Franko and Julie Carr Smyth of The Associated Press report that “Ruling leaves Ohio ban on Down syndrome abortions on hold.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Ohio ban on Down syndrome abortion blocked by U.S. appeals court.”

Morgan Phillips of Fox News reports that “Appeals court blocks Ohio ban on Down syndrome abortions.”

And Jessie Hellmann of The Hill reports that “Appeals court blocks Ohio Down syndrome abortion ban.”

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

“Dan Markel murder trial verdict: Sigfredo Garcia guilty, mistrial for Katherine Magbanua.” Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this updated report.

“Dan Markel murder trial verdict: Jury finds Sigfredo Garcia guilty, deadlocked on Katherine Magbanua.” Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report. The judge has instructed the jury to continue deliberating as to the second defendant.

Access online the audio of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: Via this link.

“Sex Discrimination Behind the Veil Is Still Sex Discrimination”: Amanda Shanor has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

And at Law.com, John Bursch has an essay (subscription or registration may be required for full access) titled “Race and Sex are Fundamentally Different. That Should Matter to SCOTUS.”

“The Supreme Court Has a Chance to Bring Constitutional Equality to Puerto Rico; A century ago, the court denied rights to territorial residents because they are an ‘alien race’; It’s time to end this vestige of ‘separate but equal'”: Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Deutsche Bank Does Not Have Trump’s Tax Returns, Court Says”: David Enrich of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Trump’s biggest lender, Deutsche Bank, does not have the president’s tax returns, according to court order.”

Corinne Ramey of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Deutsche Bank Doesn’t Have Trump’s Tax Returns, Appeals Court Says; Ruling came in broader legal battle involving congressional subpoenas to banks for president’s financial information.”

Matt Scuffham of Reuters reports that “Deutsche Bank tells U.S. court it does not have Trump’s tax returns.”

Chris Dolmetsch of Bloomberg News reports that “Deutsche Bank Doesn’t Have Trump’s Tax Returns, Court Says.”

Katelyn Polantz, Cristina Alesci, and Caroline Kelly of CNN report that “Deutsche Bank tells court it does not hold Trump’s tax returns.”

Zachary Warmbrodt of Politico reports that “Deutsche Bank doesn’t have Trump’s tax returns, court says.”

And Naomi Jagoda of The Hill reports that “Appeals court says Deutsche Bank doesn’t have Trump’s tax returns.”

You can access today’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Dan Markel case: Jury sequestered for deliberations after attorneys make closing arguments.” Karl Etters and Jeff Burlew of The Tallahassee Democrat have this report.

And Ashley Trawick of The Tallahassee Democrat reports that “ABC to air ’20/20′ crime special on Dan Markel murder trial.”

“Drug companies fail to persuade appeals court that Cleveland federal judge should step down from opioid litigation”: Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court will not disqualify judge in opioid cases or delay trial.”

Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post titled “6th Circuit refuses to halt opioids bellwether trial, denying Ohio AG’s mandamus bid.”

And at the “Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog,” Benjamin Beaton and Barrett Block have a post titled “Opioid Update: Sixth Circuit Won’t Halt Bellwether Trial (and more).”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Justice Alito’s desperation move”: Andrew Koppelman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

And at “Dorf on Law,” Michael C. Dorf has a blog post titled “The Way to Stop the Title VII Parade of Horribles is to Stop Parading the Horribles.”

“The Supreme Court May Soon Deal a Final, Fatal Blow to the Voting Rights Act; A vital tool in the battle against voter suppression is in serious legal jeopardy”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Impeachment: Chief Justice John Roberts would be the ‘umpire’ in Senate trial of President Trump.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“Byron Allen v. Comcast: Supreme Court Race Case Could Reshape Bias Lawsuits; While the TV mogul alleges racism in Comcast’s refusal to license his niche channels, U.S. businesses worry that a win for Allen during the new high court term would increase legal costs and hurt their reputations.” Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“The Supreme Court Considers L.G.B.T. Rights, but Can’t Stop Talking About Bathrooms”: Masha Gessen has this interesting post online at The New Yorker.

“Will Puerto Rico Still Be Allowed to Govern Itself? The Supreme Court will consider that question next week.” Law professor Nikolas Bowie has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Christian florist: My longtime customer was a friend, then he sued me over his gay wedding; My gay friends and customers deserve a floral designer who can make their weddings a success; Because of my faith, I can’t be that person.” Barronelle Stutzman has this essay online at USA Today.

“Trump Appointee Gorsuch Plays Coy In LGBTQ Employment Rights Case”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Trump Court Pick Ignores Senators’ Questions About His Role In Ukraine Scandal; Democrats asked Steven Menashi, a White House legal aide, what he knew about the president’s potentially impeachable offenses; He didn’t respond”: Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost has this report.

“Senators push for prosecution of Justice Kavanaugh accusers”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

And Gregg Re of Fox News has a report headlined “Kavanaugh controversy: Senate Republicans want update on criminal referrals over dubious accusations.”

“Alaska Supreme Court hears youth climate change lawsuit”: Dan Joling of The Associated Press has this report.

“Former justice Neely announces bid to return to WV Supreme Court”: Lacie Pierson of The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette-Mail has this report.

And John Raby of The Associated Press reports that “‘Dumbest’ judge Neely seeks WVa Supreme Court seat again.”

“Dan Markel murder trial: Fate of Katherine Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia will be in jury’s hands Thursday.” Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has an article that begins, “Accused Dan Markel murder suspect Katherine Magbanua told jurors she wasn’t involved in the plot to kill the Florida State law professor, but she did point the finger at his former brother-in-law.”

“Dan Markel case: State rests, Garcia’s defense team presents its case.” Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.

“Supreme Court Considers Whether L.G.B.T. Workers Are Protected by the Civil Rights Act”: Adam Liptak and Jeremy W. Peters of The New York Times have this report.

Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Trump nominees could play pivotal role as Supreme Court decides on protections for gay, transgender workers.” And Rick Noack of The Washington Post reports that “U.S. Supreme Court arguments on gay, transgender rights coincide with widening culture wars overseas.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch calls LGBTQ workplace discrimination case ‘really close.’”

Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Justices Spar Over Gay Employee Cases; Arguments weigh whether 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court is divided over gay, transgender job bias in civil rights case to be decided during 2020 election.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court hesitant to expand discrimination protection to LGBTQ employees.”

Tamar Hallerman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “U.S. Supreme Court appears divided on Georgia man’s gay rights case.”

Bart Jones of Newsday reports that “LGBT advocates rally before Supreme Court arguments in LI discrimination case.”

Keith Laing and Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News report that “Justices spar over arguments in transgender discrimination case.” And Melissa Nann Burke also reports that “Hundreds rally for transgender rights during arguments before High Court.”

Mark Sherman and Matthew Barakat of The Associated Press report that “Divided Supreme Court weighs LGBT people’s rights.”

Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court divided on LGBT employment protection; Gorsuch could be key.”

Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg News report that “U.S. Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Bias Suits by LGBT Workers.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court appears divided over LGBTQ job discrimination; The controlling vote could turn out to be Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, who seemed receptive to the plaintiffs’ arguments.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN has a report headlined “Historic Supreme Court arguments Tuesday in LGBTQ workplace rights dispute.” And Joan Biskupic of CNN has a report headlined “For LGBTQ rights, it’s a new Supreme Court.”

Shannon Bream and Bill Mears of Fox News report that “Supreme Court appears split over federal protections for job discrimination claims by LGBTQ workers.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court grapples with LGBTQ rights in the workplace.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Brett Kavanaugh Asked Just One Question During His First Big LGBTQ Case On The Supreme Court; The justices will decide if a federal law against ‘sex’ discrimination in the workplace applies to employees fired for being LGBTQ.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Hears Arguments On LGBTQ Employment Rights Case.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Only One Conservative Supreme Court Justice Is Taking LGBTQ Discrimination Seriously; Neil Gorsuch seemed open to prohibiting LGBTQ workplace discrimination; But his fears of ‘massive social upheaval’ might stop him.”

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Justice Gorsuch emerges as an unlikely swing vote in the LGBTQ discrimination cases; Trump’s first justice may set his politics aside to rule in favor of workers who claim they were fired for being gay or trans.”

And online at The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson has an essay titled “Neil Gorsuch Might Be The Supreme Court’s LGBTQ Rights Savior; But He May Not; A sharply divided Supreme Court considered whether federal law protects LGBTQ people from being fired, with Justice Neil Gorsuch emerging as the possible route to equality victory.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618.

And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 18-107.

“How the Court Could Limit Abortion Rights Without Overturning Roe: No matter which path the court takes, the destination will likely be the same — the end of access to safe, legal abortion for many women.” Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Supreme Court will consider whether gay, transgender workers are protected by federal law”: Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.

Ariane de Vogue of CNN has a report headlined “Historic Supreme Court arguments Tuesday in LGBTQ workplace rights dispute.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court takes up cases about LGBT people’s rights.”

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Showdown Over LGBTQ Employment Rights Hits Supreme Court.”

“The Many Sins of College Admissions”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Indiana Supreme Court to decide validity of 183-year prison term issued to 16-year-old Gary double murderer”: Dan Carden of The Times of Munster, Indiana has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Sex Debate: Congress is the place to rewrite laws as social mores change.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“Why it might have been better if the Supreme Court had let colleges have ‘quotas'”: Columnist Charles Lane has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court keeps gun law challenge on docket despite Democrats’ threat to pack the court”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.

“In case against Ocwen, a sign of turmoil to come for CFPB”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.