“The Three People at the Center of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision”: Online at The New Yorker, Michael Schulman has a post that begins, “I keep thinking about their jobs. Funeral director. Advocate for at-risk children. Skydiving instructor.”

“Neil Gorsuch? The surprise behind the Supreme Court’s surprising LGBTQ decision.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“The Emperor’s New Law: Magical thinking replaces jurisprudence at the Supreme Court.” Kevin D. Williamson has this essay online at National Review.

“Breaking With Tradition, Some Judges Speak Out on Racial Injustices; State supreme courts pledge to root out bias in judicial system and heal ‘raw wounds of racism'”: Jess Bravin had this article in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Illinois Churches Lose Bid to Hold Large Religious Services”: Porter Wells of Bloomberg Law has a report that begins, “A group of Illinois churches couldn’t convince the Seventh Circuit on Tuesday to block enforcement of an Illinois coronavirus order that caps religious services at ten individuals.”

And Lisa Klein of Courthouse News Service reports that “Illinois Churches Lose Challenge to Ban on Mass Gatherings.”

Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Bostock: What Two Conservatives Realized and Three Dissenters Missed; By following Antonin Scalia’s textualist criteria, Neil Gorsuch ruled that gay and transgender employees can’t be discriminated against.” Law professor Andrew Koppelman has this essay online at The American Prospect.

“Hawley on LGBTQ ruling: Conservative legal movement is over.” Burgess Everett of Politico has this report.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman has a post titled “Senator Hawley: Bostock ‘represents the end of the conservative legal movement’; ‘If we’ve been fighting for originalism and textualism and this is the result of that, then I have to say it turns out we haven’t been fighting for very much.’“

“State Supreme Court says judge should not have become Facebook friends with woman while he decided her custody case”: Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

And Scott Bauer of The Associated Press reports that “Judge’s Facebook friendship upends Wisconsin custody case.”

You can access today’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin at this link. Interestingly, the author of the majority opinion also issued a separate concurrence in which the author of the dissenting opinion joined.

“Simple math suggests complex back story at Supreme Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Conservative Christians See ‘Seismic Implications’ in Supreme Court Ruling; A ruling that protects the rights of gay and transgender workers could affect how conservative groups operate their own institutions”: Elizabeth Dias has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Authorities charge alleged Santa Cruz deputy killer with assassinating federal cop in Oakland, link attacks to Boogaloo group”: Nate Gartrell and Fiona Kelliher of The East Bay Times have this report.

“Does Justice Gorsuch’s Magnificent Opinion in the Title VII Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Cases Redeem Textualism?” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“AMA: Questions from Charles Barzun.” Jack Balkin has this interesting post at his blog, “Balkinization.”

“John Roberts May Not Be the Ally Gun-Rights Advocates Hoped For; The Court’s decision not to hear several Second Amendment cases may be a sign that the chief justice is not a solid vote against gun control”: Law professor Adam Winkler has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And online at Bloomberg Opinion, Francis Wilkinson has an essay titled “Justices Who Favor Gun Rights Fear Roberts Does Not; Why the Supreme Court declined to hear 10 different Second Amendment cases.”

“Abolishing Qualified Immunity Is Unlikely to Alter Police Behavior; A host of reasons raise questions about the effectiveness of this reform”: Law professor Daniel Epps has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Ruling on LGBTQ rights once again reveals precarious nature of Supreme Court’s conservative majority”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“What ‘Because of Sex’ Really Means: Beneath the verbal jousting, the Court expressed dueling views of sexual orientation and gender, and how society should assess them.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Neil Gorsuch slapped conservatives by creating new gay rights”: Josh Hammer has this essay online at The New York Post.

And at the “Mirror of Justice” blog, Robert George has a post titled “The Bostock Case and the Rule of Law.”

“Coronavirus Order For Miami Detention Facility Dashed on Appeal”: Porter Wells of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Izzy Kapnick of Courthouse News Service reports that “11th Circuit Tosses Virus Safety Order Against Florida Jail.”

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

“Qualified immunity granted in Duggar case”: Ron Wood of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has this report.

And Max Brantley of Arkansas Times has an article headlined “8th Circuit grants immunity to remaining defendants in Duggar daughters’ lawsuit over release of police reports.”

You can access yesterday’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“[T]he appellant’s asseverational array is all meringue and no pie”: So concluded Senior First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya in a decision issued yesterday. As Homer Simpson once remarked . . . .

“Textualism’s Redeemers: A ruling that Title VII protects gay and transgender employees may earn textualism strange new disrespect.” Dale Carpenter has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

And also at that blog, Ilya Somin has a post titled “Textualism and Purposivism in Today’s Supreme Court Decision on Discrimination Against Gays, Lesbians, and Transsexuals; The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is well-justified from the standpoint of textualism (a theory associated with conservatives), but less clearly so from the standpoint of purposivism (often associated with liberals).”