“John Roberts strikes again. Conservatives should be furious.” Columnist Henry Olsen has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Trump to extend current DACA protections, reject new applications after Supreme Court knockdown”: John Fritze and David Jackson of USA Today has this report.

“Trump Is Now Openly Defying the Supreme Court”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Sen. Hawley roils GOP court watchers with declaration he will only vote for nominees who oppose Roe; Hawley’s comments indicate a split among Republicans on how to handle Supreme Court nominations”: Tyler Olson of Fox News has this report.

“When Conservative Justices Revolt: Donald Trump promised religious voters that he would protect them with his Supreme Court appointments; The justices are not necessarily playing along.” Emma Green of The Atlantic has this report.

“Leaks From the Supreme Court, Part II: Justice Gorsuch Look Decisive and In Control. Yesterday was pro-Chief Justice Roberts day on CNN. Today is pro-Justice Gorsuch day. Justice Kagan is lurking in the background.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Trump’s Next Supreme Court List Could Be Really Extreme”: Ed Kilgore has this post at the “Intelligencer” blog of New York Magazine.

“Botched Interview Taints Conviction for Aiming Laser at Plane”: Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.

“‘Dumb, dumb, dumb!’ my Grandpa Harold would exclaim when I tried to explain a legal concept that made little sense.” So begins a concurring opinion that Ninth Circuit Judge John B. Owens issued today.

Not sure what to make of the third paragraph of Judge Owens’s concurring opinion, however:

We should avoid doing dumb things. Especially ones that are dumb³.

The call for footnote 3 is also puzzling, as the concurrence contains no footnotes (let alone three), and the majority opinion contains way more than three footnotes. (Perhaps this is some movie dialogue reference as to which I’m sadly unfamiliar?)

Update: A reader emails to opine that “³” is not a footnote but rather an exponent, meaning dumb to third power. That helps explain things. I plead guilty to being dumb to the second power for not recognizing that originally. (I might have spelled it out as “dumb cubed,” but then no one has appointed me to the Ninth Circuit.)

Second update: Dumb to the third power confirmed by the opinion’s author. And here’s the grandfather to whom the opinion refers.

“How Have Judges Responded To The Press? Chief Justice Marshall wrote pseudonymous editorials after McCulloch v. Maryland. Justice Stewart wrote a letter to the editor of the WSJ after Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Anger, leaks and tensions at the Supreme Court during the LGBTQ rights case”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this exclusive report.