“Let Jack Phillips Bake Cake: Some of the worst acts of intolerance are being done in the name of tolerance.” Columnist William McGurn has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“The NCAA, the Supreme Court, a Duck, and a Bicycle: The nation’s highest court takes on the warped economy — and flimsy defenses — of big-time college sports.” Jason Gay has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Gives Goldman Sachs a Do-Over in Securities Fraud Suit; The justices said the bank may renew its arguments that its statements about honesty and integrity were too generic to support a class action for billions of dollars”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Orders More Proceedings in Goldman Sachs Shareholder Suit; Court rejects Wall Street bank’s plea to alter the standards for misrepresentations.”

And Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “Class Suing Goldman Sachs Decertified by Supreme Court; The justices sent a securities fraud case back to the Second Circuit on Monday for a look at whether the misrepresentations Goldman Sachs made to investors actually affected its stock price.”

“Supreme Court Says Over 200 Patent Judges Were Improperly Appointed; A fractured coalition of justices limited the effect of the decision, saying a larger role for an executive branch official would address the matter”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “High court: Congress erred in patent dispute board setup.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court reins in power of patent tribunal judges.”

Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Leaves Intact ‘Death Squad’ Patent Board.”

Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Says Patent Judges Must Be Appointed by President; The Supreme Court removed the secretary of commerce’s power to appoint administrative patent judges, finding they are principal officers who must be appointed by the president.”

And at his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has a post titled “United States v. Arthrex: Supreme Court Preserves the PTAB.”

“US appeals court blocks judge’s decision to overturn state’s assault weapons ban”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report on an order that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Effective July 6, 2021, operation of the Unified Judicial System shall return to prepandemic status. All courtrooms, adjacent judicial facilities, chambers, and offices within the Unified Judicial System shall be fully opened and staffed by judges and other personnel.” So states an order that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

The Pa. Superior Court, the far busier of Pennsylvania’s two intermediate appellate courts, has scheduled a remote oral argument session to take place from July 20-22, 2021. It will be interesting to see whether that oral argument session will instead now occur in-person at that court’s Philadelphia courtroom.

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

1. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, No. 20-222. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued an opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston, No. 20-512. And Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in part in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases but called for the views of the Solicitor General’s Office in one case.

“Justice Breyer, under pressure from left to retire, takes the long view”: Jazmine Ulloa of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Supreme Court Signals Expansion of Religious Exemptions From Laws; Cases will test the court’s ability to balance the growing legal recognition of LGBT equality with religious interests”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“Judicial Notice (06.19.21): Moving On; Major SCOTUS rulings, the passing of a legendary jurist, and other legal news from the week that was.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Justice Samuel Alito swung for the fences on religious liberty and came up short, but isn’t done yet”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“The religious freedom bomb may be about to detonate”: Columnist David Von Drehle has this essay online at The Washington Post.

Also online there, columnist Henry Olsen has an essay titled “The Supreme Court has shown it remains committed to freedom of religion — for now.”

“A pair of surprises from Amy Coney Barrett”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“I think retirement would be just perfect for Justice Breyer — or anyone else!” Columnist Alexandra Petri has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“American Samoans are the latest victims of these ignorant Supreme Court rulings; American Samoans deserve the same rights as the rest of the U.S.” Law professor Steve Vladeck has this essay online at MSNBC.

“Senate Panel Advances Cunningham’s Nomination to Federal Circuit”: Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“The Supreme Court’s Newest Justices Produce Some Unexpected Results; In the term so far, including two major decisions on Thursday, the court’s expanded conservative majority is fractured and its liberals are often on the winning side”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“The Next Major Challenge to the Affordable Care Act: The law’s opponents have a good chance of winning their next showdown, though it won’t threaten the law as a whole.” Law professor Nicholas Bagley has this essay online at The Atlantic.

And online at NBC News, law professor Leah Litman has an essay titled “The Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, but its supporters shouldn’t breathe easy; Thursday’s ruling does nothing to protect against the other pending lawsuits challenging the ACA — and may even suggest they could have more traction with SCOTUS.”

“Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges; The former president promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act; He met the court’s ruling with the deafening silence of defeat”: Jonathan Allen of NBC News has this news analysis.

“Amuse Bouche”: You can access today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw and their guest Katherine Franke, via this link.

“‘Alito was just pissed’: Trump’s Supreme Court breaks down along surprising lines; Thursday’s decisions laid bare an emerging rift within the court’s conservative majority.” Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“‘Hopelessly divided’ Supreme Court defies narrative with another unanimous opinion; For a hopelessly divided ideological court, the Supreme Court seems to be saying a lot in one voice about the law and its own institution”: Law professor Jonathan Turley has this essay online at USA Today.

“Why the Supreme Court Should Reset the Terms of the Abortion Debate”: Leah Libresco Sargeant has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court foster care ruling likely to prompt more tests of religion vs. LGBTQ rights”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.

“How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory; To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like ‘the perfect weapon'”: Benjamin Wallace-Wells has this article online at The New Yorker.

“Supreme Court Limits Human Rights Suits Against Corporations; Six citizens of Mali had sued Nestlé USA and Cargill, accusing the companies of profiting from child slavery on Ivory Coast cocoa farms”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Peter Whoriskey have an article headlined “Supreme Court says chocolate companies cannot be sued over child slavery on African cocoa farms.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall have an article headlined “Supreme Court Rules Cargill, Nestle Can’t Be Sued in Child-Labor Case; Justices say allegations of abuse in Ivory Coast don’t have enough connection to the U.S.”

John Fritze of USA Today has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Former child slaves can’t sue U.S. chocolate companies over child labor in West Africa.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Plaintiffs’ lawyer optimistic after Supreme Court dismisses slave labor suit.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court backs Nestle, Cargill in child slave labor suit.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules for Nestle, Cargill over slavery lawsuit.”

Greg Stohr, Kimberly Robinson, and Jordan Rubin of Bloomberg News report that “Supreme Court Backs Nestle, Cargill on Child-Slavery Suit.”

Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court throws out child slavery lawsuit against Nestle, Cargill.”

Brandi Buchman and Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service report that “Supreme Court Rejects Human Rights Case Against Nestle; The justices threw out the case of Six African men claiming Nestle was complicit in the use of child slavery on Ivory Coast cocoa plantations.”

In commentary, at the “Lawfare” blog, William S. Dodge has a post titled “The Surprisingly Broad Implications of Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe for Human Rights Litigation and Extraterritoriality.”

And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Progressives Earned a Qualified Supreme Court Win From Clarence Thomas.”

“What Politicized the Supreme Court? Judicial restraint is not responsible for the disorder of our Supreme Court confirmation process.” At the “Law & Liberty” blog, Jesse Merriam has this review of Ilya Shapiro’s book, “Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court.”

“Can Philly and LGBTQs Still Win?” Law professor Leslie C. Griffin has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“Was There a Double Flip in the November Sitting? Did the assignments change in both Fulton and California?” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“What the Supreme Court Got Right (and Justice Alito Got Wrong) in the Texas ACA Decision: A slightly deeper dive into today’s California v. Texas decision rejecting the effort to turn constitutional litigation into a game of Jenga.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

And at “Dorf on Law,” Michael C. Dorf has a post titled “Why Did the California v. Texas Majority Reject Standing-by-Nonseverability? Five Possibilities.”

“Rosie Abella said she’d answer questions when she turned 75. Rosie Abella is 75 (almost). She was appointed at 29, the youngest judge in Canadian history and leaves the Supreme Court as its longest-serving current member. A one-of-a-kind interview by Paul Wells.” Paul Wells has this cover story in the July 2021 issue of Maclean’s.

“Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett have seized the Supreme Court for now”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Conservative Shift Hits Bump With Moderate Rulings.”

Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law reports that “Barrett Channels Roberts’ ‘Go-Slow’ Approach in Landmark Cases.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Josh Blackman has a post titled “We don’t have a 6-3 Conservative Court. We have a 3-3-3 Court. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are on the right. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are somewhere to the left of the right. And Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan will do anything to form a majority.”

“Trudeau nominates Ontario judge Mahmud Jamal to Supreme Court of Canada”: Sean Fine of The Globe and Mail of Toronto has this report.

And Tonda MacCharles of The Toronto Star reports that “Mahmud Jamal becomes the first person of colour appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.”

“Supreme Court Backs Catholic Agency in Case on Gay Rights and Foster Care; The unanimous ruling was further evidence that claims of religious liberty almost always prevail in the current court”: Adam Liptak will have this front page article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court unanimously rules for Catholic group in Philadelphia foster-care dispute.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for Catholic foster care agency in Philadelphia, citing discrimination.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Exempts Catholic Foster-Care Agency From Nondiscrimination Law; Catholic Social Services is entitled to city contract despite Philadelphia ordinance requiring contractors to treat same-sex couples equally, court rules.”

John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “Religious freedom vs. LGBTQ rights: Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster care agency.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court sides with Catholic Social Services in foster care, LGBT battle.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Another victory at the Supreme Court for religious groups.”

Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court backs Catholic group that shunned gay foster parents.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. High Court Backs Catholic Group Over Gay Foster-Care Rights.”

Jeremy Roebuck and Julia Terruso of The Philadelphia Inquirer report that “The Supreme Court ruled against Philly in its fight with a Catholic foster group but may not have ended the dispute; The ruling called the city’s 2018 move to end its foster contract with Catholic Social Services unconstitutional; But the question of what to do about it split the court.”

John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court unanimously sides with Catholic adoption agency that turned away same-sex couples.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Ruled Against LGBTQ Families In A Big Religious Freedom Case; The court sided with a Catholic agency that wouldn’t place foster kids with same-sex couples, but rejected a request to issue a broader ruling on nondiscrimination policies.”

Alexandra Jones of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Says Philadelphia Can’t Cut Ties With Catholic Foster Care Group; Philadelphia shredded its contract with a foster care agency that doesn’t place children with gay couples, but the Supreme Court found Thursday that it was the city that discriminated.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules Catholic Group Doesn’t Have To Consider LGBTQ Foster Parents.”

In commentary, Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “One Cheer for the Supreme Court on Religious Liberty; A narrow ruling helps Catholic foster parents, but the faithful deserve more protection under the First Amendment.”

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “John Roberts Just Pulled Off His Greatest Judicial Magic Trick.”

And online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s 9-0 Ruling on Gay Foster Parents Divides Justices; A unanimous ruling on a case affecting LGBT rights doesn’t show the court is united on religious liberty exemptions; Actually, it shows the opposite.”