“Sheldon Stalks the Supreme Court; Sen. Whitehouse wants to know where the Justices travel and why”: The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Issued a Decision Too Extreme for Clarence Thomas; In a sweeping 5–4 decision, the court stripped Congress of its power to create new rights”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court Blocks Congress on the Right to Sue; Liberals join Clarence Thomas in the dissent, but for different reasons.”

“‘Apex of his career’: Justice Stephen Breyer is exerting his influence despite retirement calls.” John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“Supreme Court Limits Suit on False Terrorism Ties on Credit Reports; In a 5-to-4 decision, the court said only people who had suffered ‘concrete harm’ from being associated with terrorism had the right to sue”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sides with credit agency, oil refineries and Native Alaskans in flurry of rulings.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules no right to sue for some wrongly labeled as terrorists by credit agency.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Pares Back Class-Action Suits; In 5-4 vote, justices rule consumers falsely labeled as potential terrorists on credit reports can’t sue unless they demonstrate injury.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court curbs TransUnion ‘terrorist list’ lawsuit.”

Holly Barker of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Limits Consumer Suits in Win for TransUnion.”

And Samantha Hawkins of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Chucks Class Damages Over Errant Terror Labeling; TransUnion informed thousands of people that their names were a match for a U.S. government watch list, but class standing is only possible if each suffered a specific level of damage.”

“Ohio ethics rule says firms can’t use rivals’ names to rig search results”: Chinekwu Osakwe of Reuters has this report on an opinion that the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct issued earlier this month.

“3rd Circuit Punts Questions of Medical Device Liability to Pa. Supreme Court; In determining that state law is unresolved on two issues of medical device products liability, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has sent the issue to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for review”: P.J. D’Annunzio of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday certifying two questions for resolution by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

I am serving as appellate counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in this case and am quoted in this article.

“Strange Alliances: Justices Defy Partisan Labels in String of Recent Decisions; This notable marker of the current term is no doubt music to the ears of two justices in particular — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Stephen Breyer.” Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid Quietly Rewrote Four Decades of Takings Clause Doctrine; For the first time, the 6-3 conservative majority powered a hard-right change in the law”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“The Supreme Court’s Cheerleader Decision Has Something to Frustrate and Disappoint Everyone”: Frank D. LoMonte has this future tense essay online at Slate.

“Can Congress Insure Fair Elections? The legal scholar Rick Hasen discusses the dangers of election subversion and voter suppression.” Isaac Chotiner has this “Q&A” online at The New Yorker.

“Justice Alito bristles at conservative Supreme Court’s incremental course”: John Kruzel of The Hill has this report.

Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, No. 20-297. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn., No. 20-472. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, No. 20-543. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.