“Initial thoughts on the constitutional right to concealed carry in NY Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett, and a possible trip to Hawaii”: William Baude has this post at the “Summary, Judgment” blog.

“Sheldon Whitehouse Is No Friend of the Courts; The senator declares war on amicus briefs and attacks the right to express views he disfavors”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Samuel Alito’s Culture-War Warning; The Justices punt on California’s sanctions against Texas”: This editorial will appear in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“US appeals court listens to Tennessee abortion ban arguments”: Kimberlee Kruesi of The Associated Press has this report.

And Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Tennessee Fights to Reimpose Ban on Selective Abortions; The Volunteer State wants an appeals panel to reinstate two abortion restrictions, including a ban on the procedure when a woman is seeking it because of the gender or race of the child.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Barrett and Gorsuch Have to Choose Between Originalism and Expanding Gun Rights”: Professor Saul Cornell has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“A Sharp Divide at the Supreme Court Over a One-Letter Word; In an immigration ruling that scrambled the usual alliances, the justices differed over the significance of the article ‘a'”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “An unusual coalition as Supreme Court rules for immigrant.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to immigrants facing deportation.”

Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Justices Again Back Longtime Immigrants in Deportation Case.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Conservative justices split in ruling for immigrant fighting deportation.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Deportation Hearing Notices Can’t Arrive Incomplete; The justices said Thursday that proper notice of a non-citizen’s removal hearing must be a single document — not two partially complete ones.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch’s Persnickety Libertarianism Gave Immigrants a Win at the Supreme Court; The decision came down to a one-letter word.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman has a post titled “The Supreme Court’s Libertarian Wing Squares The Corner; Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett won’t ‘endow the Executive Branch with maximum bureaucratic flexibility.’“

“Justices Question Whether Student’s Snapchat Rant Caused a Substantial Disruption”: David L. Hudson, Jr. has this post at NYU’s First Amendment Watch.

“Who is Dissenting in the Ninth Circuit?” Adam Feldman has this post at The Juris Lab.

“U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to immigrants facing deportation”: Andrew Chung of Reuters has this report.

“Because the effect on out-of-state commerce of Kentucky’s price-gouging laws is entirely dependent upon Amazon’s independent decisionmaking with regard to the structure of its online marketplace, the application of those laws to Kentucky-based third-party sellers on Amazon in connection with sales to Kentucky consumers is unlikely to offend the extraterritoriality doctrine of the dormant commerce clause.” So concludes a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a ruling issued today.

“LA County Asks Ninth Circuit for Emergency Stay of Homeless Housing Order; A federal judge has ordered Los Angeles city and county officials to house or offer housing to homeless people by October”: Martin Macias Jr. of Courthouse News Service has this report on an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Judges Focus on Diversity in Clerkship, Internship Hiring”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has this report.

“FTC Head Says Supreme Court Ruling Puts More Than $2 Billion for Cheated Consumers at Risk; Congressional hearing suggests legislative effort to restore agency’s powers won’t be quick”: Brent Kendall had this article in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, No. 19-863. And Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“A Lively Supreme Court Argument Over a Cheerleader’s Vulgar Rant; The justices struggled to determine how the First Amendment applies to public schools’ power to punish students for social media posts and other off-campus speech”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court seems wary of bold pronouncements in student speech case.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court weighs student’s right to free speech in the internet era.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Limits to Schools’ Power to Patrol Student Speech; Angry cheerleader’s intemperate Snapchat drew a yearlong suspension from team that Pennsylvania school board asks court to reinstate.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court wary of giving schools broad power to punish students’ off-campus speech.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court ponders cheerleader’s profanity-laced Snapchat, student free speech rights.”

In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jeremy Roebuck has a front page article headlined “A Pa. cheerleader’s profane Snapchat rant lands before the Supreme Court; The justices expressed skepticism at the Schuylkill County teen’s suspension for her foul-mouthed Snapchat post; But they struggled with the prospect of drawing broad lessons from her case.”

In today’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, Christina Tatu has a front page article headlined “Can schools control student speech outside class? Supreme Court weighs Schuylkill County cheerleader’s case.”

In today’s edition of The Republican-Herald of Pottsville, Pennsylvania, John E. Usalis has a front page article headlined “Schuylkill County cheerleader’s father sees school district case as ‘weak’ as Supreme Court hears free speech arguments.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Wary Supreme Court weighs student’s Snapchat profanity case.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court grapples with cheerleader’s free speech case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Cheerleader’s Profane Snapchat Post Tests Speech Rights at Supreme Court.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court wary of giving schools broad authority over off-campus speech; The justices were concerned that giving schools authority to punish students for swearing off campus would go too far.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court grapples with First Amendment rights of schoolchildren in cheerleader case.”

Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court justices grapple with school speech case over cheerleader’s profane Snapchat post; Justices appeared poised to issue narrow ruling in complex case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court grapples with free speech case involving student’s Snapchat outburst; The justices were divided on whether to issue a sweeping ruling bringing First Amendment law for schools into the social media age or settle for a more modest decision.”

Mark Walsh of Education Week reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Wary About Extending School Authority Over Student Internet Speech.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Justices hear First Amendment clash over cheerleader’s Snapchat.”

Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Hears Free Speech Case Over Cheerleader’s Snapchat Post; The justices seemed unconvinced that students’ off-campus speech should be regulated.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “‘Frightened to Death’: Cheerleader Speech Case Gives Supreme Court Pause.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Is ‘Frightened to Death’ by the Case of a Foul-Mouthed Cheerleader.”

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The free speech case so complicated it seems to have stumped the Supreme Court; The Court’s ‘cursing cheerleader’ case proves devilishly difficult to unwind.”

Online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Cheerleader Free Speech Case Puts Liberals in a Bind; The ACLU and conservatives want to protect students’ speech rights while the mainstream left is worried about enabling harassment.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Tinker, Mahanoy, Students, Hecklers, and Lawyers: The heckler’s veto, in school and out.”

You can access via this link the audio and transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L., No. 20-255.