“Supreme Court Acts in Cases on Transgender Rights and Excessive Force; In both cases, some of the most conservative justices signaled frustration with the court’s cautious approach to divisive issues”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes and Hannah Natanson of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court will not hear transgender bathroom rights dispute, a win for Va. student who sued his school for discrimination.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “In win for transgender student, Supreme Court refuses to hear case on bathroom ban.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Declines to Consider Transgender Bathroom Case; Lower-court victories remain in place for Gavin Grimm, who was denied access to the boys’ bathroom by his Virginia high school.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court declines to hear Virginia school board’s transgender bathroom case.”
Valerie Richardson and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Conservatives frustrated by Supreme Court’s repeated refusals to take up transgender cases; High court declines to grant writ of certiorari in victory for LGBTQ movement.”
Peter Dujardin of The Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia reports that “Gavin Grimm’s yearslong transgender rights battle against Gloucester ends in ‘enormous victory.’”
Denise Lavoie and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press report that “Supreme Court won’t revive school’s transgender bathroom ban.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Transgender student wins as U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs bathroom appeal.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Transgender Boy Wins Bathroom Fight as Top Court Spurns Case.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court won’t hear dispute over bathrooms for transgender students; Monday’s order denying review in the case means Gavin Grimm’s victory in the lower courts remains intact.”
Ariane de Vogue and Chandelis Duster of CNN report that “Supreme Court gives victory to transgender student who sued to use bathroom.”
Bianca Quilantan of Politico reports that “Supreme Court passes on transgender bathroom challenge; The Supreme Court’s decision is seen as a major victory for transgender student rights, especially as a number of conservative states pass laws to challenge them.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court won’t hear school’s appeal in transgender bathroom access fight.”
And Brad Kutner of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Paves Way for Transgender-Inclusive Bathroom Policies in School.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “The Supreme Court Leaves A Transgender Student’s Legal Victory Intact.”
“America owes thanks to Trump’s lawyers — even William Barr”: George T. Conway III has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Man who was age 15 when involved in hijacking, killing in 1999 was re-sentenced Monday from a life term to 65 years”: Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch had this article back in June 2017.
Thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered a second resentencing, at which the defendant received a 52-year sentence. Today, the majority on a divided three-judge Fourth Circuit panel issued this decision affirming the district court’s imposition of that 52-year sentence.
“Student seeking refund for canceled study-abroad program takes case to appeals court; A Harvard College student who was sent home from Europe when the pandemic hit is arguing that she and other students should get refunds from the Portland-based Council on International Education Exchange”: Megan Gray of The Portland (Me.) Press Herald had this report back in April 2021.
Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of the student’s suit.
“This Suicidal, Gasoline-Drenched Man Burned to Death After Cops Tased Him. A Federal Court Says That’s Reasonable Force. ‘In what legal universe is it not even plausibly unreasonable to knowingly immolate someone?’ asks dissenting judge.” Billy Binion has this post online at Reason about an order denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued Friday.
My earlier coverage of Friday’s en banc rehearing denial order can be accessed here.
“The Supreme Court’s Dockets — Shadow and Otherwise”: Samuel Bray has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” linking to his prepared testimony before the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States later this week.
“Justice Breyer Is at the ‘Top of His Game,’ Says Close Friend Kenneth Feinberg; Feinberg said he doubts anyone knows when or if Breyer will retire”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.
“Today is the last Monday in June. Where are the opinions? For the first time in at least a decade, there were no opinions on the last Monday in June.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“The Bishops Are Wrong About Biden — and Abortion”: Garry Wills has this guest essay in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“Myrna Perez — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”
“Breyer’s future is Supreme Court’s biggest question”: Harper Neidig of The Hill has this report.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in two new cases.
The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Lombardo v. St. Louis, No. 20–391. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch joined.
The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Pakdel v. San Francisco, No. 20–1212.
Justice Thomas issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States, No. 20–645.
And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Hernandez v. Peery, No. 20–6199.
