“Why Scalia should have loved the Supreme Court’s Title VII decision”: George T. Conway III has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Pole Camera Didn’t Violate Fourth Amendment, First Circuit Says”: Blake Brittain of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday.

In an opinion concurring in the judgment, Circuit Judge David J. Barron invoked the recent Major League Baseball scandals over pitch sign stealing and called for en banc review.

“Hershey, Nestle, Mars Beat Appeals in Child Labor Label Suits”: Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday.

“Panel Blocks Rule Forcing Drugmakers to Show Prices in TV Ads”: Erika Williams of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.

Access online the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit in an appeal asserting that New Jersey’s restrictions on large capacity ammunition magazines violates the Second Amendment: The audio of yesterday’s oral argument in Ass’n New Jersey Rifle et al. v. Attorney General New Jersey can be accessed via this link.

“DC Circuit Backs Rule Change on Big-Game Trophy Imports”: Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.

“Penn State ex-president argues conviction properly tossed”: Mark Scolforo of The Associated Press has this report.

And Quincey Reese of The Daily Collegian, the student newspaper of Penn State University, reports that “Federal Court of Appeals questions former Penn State President Graham Spanier’s child endangerment charges.”

The audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is not yet available online.

“The Obscure Supreme Court Decision the Trump Administration Could Use to Gut the First Amendment; The president may not be able to control what content Twitter and Facebook run, but he can still attempt to intimidate or silence the platforms”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“How the Supreme Court Is Quietly Enabling Trump; Using emergency relief at the court, the administration has imposed controversial policies without a final determination of their legality”: Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck has this essay online at The New York Times.

“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).”

“President Trump says his family is unified. A niece’s book could explode that image.” Michael Kranish of The Washington Post has this report. According to the article, “The book will include Mary [Trump]’s account of her conversations with Donald Trump’s sister, former U.S. appellate judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who does not speak flatteringly about her brother, according to the Daily Beast.”

And Lachlan Cartwright of The Daily Beast has an article headlined “Revealed: The Family Member Who Turned on Trump; The president’s niece Mary Trump is set to publish a tell-all this summer—and to reveal that she was a primary source for The New York Times’ investigation into Trump’s taxes.”

“Federal Judge Lambasts Amendment to Rename Confederate Bases as ‘Madness,’ Gets Thoroughly Bodied By Clerk”: Ryan Grim of The Intercept has a report that begins, “The battle over renaming U.S. bases that currently honor Confederate officers broke out in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., on Monday. But the argument was not in the courtroom; rather, it was launched, and settled, over email.”

“Christian conservatives rattled after Supreme Court rules against LGBT discrimination”: Sarah Pulliam Bailey of The Washington Post has this report.

Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine of Politico report that “GOP backs Gorsuch’s LGBTQ decision after conservative blowback.”

Harper Neidig and John Kruzel of The Hill report that “Gorsuch draws surprise, anger with LGBT decision.”

Tierney Sneed and Kate Riga of TPM have a report headlined “Why Gorsuch’s Role In Pro-LGBT Ruling Cuts Conservatives So Deep.” And Kate Riga reports that “Conservatives Declare End Of The World After Gorsuch, Roberts Help Deliver Huge LGBTQ Win.”

In commentary, at “The Soapbox” blog of The New Republic, Matt Ford has a post titled “Neil Gorsuch Just Upended the Conservative Legal Project; The conservative justice’s ruling in favor of gay, queer, and transgender workers shows the limits of the right’s Faustian bargain on judges.”

Online at Slate, Jeremy Stahl has a jurisprudence essay titled “Conservative Activists and Pundits Are Melting Down Over Gorsuch’s Embrace of LGBTQ Rights; After spending millions to get him on the court, judicial activists are feeling betrayed.” Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Just Tanked Trump’s Anti-Trans Agenda; The administration has spent years crafting a multipronged assault on LGBTQ rights.” And law professor Naomi Schoenbaum has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Victory for Transgender Women Is a Win for All Women.”

Online at The Daily Signal, Hans von Spakovsky and Ryan T. Anderson have an essay titled “Gorsuch Helps Transform the Supreme Court Into the Supreme Legislature on LGBT Rights.”

And at RealClear Politics, Sean Trende has a post titled “Why Roberts, Gorsuch Voted With Liberals on LGBT Case.”

“How Gorsuch Took a Page From Scalia in an LGBT Employment Discrimination Case”: Damon Root has this post online at Reason.