“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.

“Biden’s Push for Equity in Government Hits Legal and Political Roadblocks; No part of President Biden’s agenda has been as ambitious as his attempt to place concerns about equity squarely at the center of the federal government’s decision-making”: Michael D. Shear, Stacy Cowley, and Alan Rappeport have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court’s Surprising Term; During a time when the country has been starkly divided on matters ranging from the pandemic to the Presidency, the Court has largely avoided partisanship”: Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen will have this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the July 5, 2021 issue of The New Yorker.

“Transgender rights, religion among cases justices could add”: Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press have this report.

“High Court’s Breyer Leaves Democrats in Suspense on Retirement”: Ryan Teague Beckwith, Laura Litvan, and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Inside William Barr’s Breakup With Trump: In the final months of the administration, the doggedly loyal attorney general finally had enough.” Jonathan D. Karl has this article online at The Atlantic.

“Judicial Notice (06.26.21): #FreeBritney; Blockbuster Supreme Court decisions, a big-ticket litigation finance deal, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“High School SCOTUS: A Breakdown of Mahanoy Area School District v. BL.” A contributor to the blog “High School SCOTUS” has posted this video discussion on YouTube.

“A Conservative Court Awakening: The Justices take another step to reinforce the separation of powers.” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Trump-appointed judges obstruct Biden ‘pen and phone’ policies just months into term; Trump judges stymied Biden administration on parts of COVID relief bill, oil and gas leases and more”: Tyler Olson of Fox News has this report.

“Will a pending Supreme Court case doom DOJ’s voting rights lawsuit before it begins?” Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Ideology Shows in Supreme Court Ruling on Union Organizing; If conservative justices oppose judicial activism, what did they just do to a longstanding California labor law?” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“5th Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Cops Who Ignited a Suicidal, Gasoline-Drenched Man by Tasing Him; The appeals court concluded that the officers’ use of force was reasonable in the circumstances”: Jacob Sullum had this post online at Reason back in February 2021 about a per curiam opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had issued earlier that month.

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit issued this order, accompanied by concurrences and dissents, denying rehearing en banc in the case by a vote of 13-to-4. In particular, Circuit Judge Don R. Willett — no fan of the qualified immunity doctrine — wrote a noteworthy dissent from the denial of en banc review.

Judge Willett’s dissent drew responses from Circuit Judges E. Grady Jolly (access here, demonstrating he was none too amused by Willett’s rhetorical flourishes), Andrew S. Oldham (access here) and James C. Ho (access here, referring in passing to the “woke Constitution“), the first two of whom served on the original three-judge panel.

“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.