“Guest post by Roy Black about F. Lee Bailey”: You can access this post at “The SDFLA Blog.”

“Justices Sticking to Punitive Damage Limits After J&J Case”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Behind the scenes of the Supreme Court’s busiest season”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.

“Snarky 9th Circ ConAgra opinion obscures big question in consumer cases”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Senate confirms Valerie Stanfill as Maine’s chief justice; Justice Stanfill will succeed former Chief Justice Leigh Saufley, who stepped down last year to become dean of the University of Maine School of Law”: Kevin Miller of The Portland Press Herald has this report.

“California to pay $2M church legal fees over virus closures”: Brian Melley of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court speaks loudly to critics in Thursday ruling. Here’s what justices are saying. The decision in Van Buren v. United States must have been another disappointment for Dems and advocates who are demanding raw court packing.” Law professor Jonathan Turley has this essay online at Fox News.

“Supreme Court Limits Reach of Federal Law on Computer Crime; In a 6-to-3 decision featuring unusual alliances, the court said it was wary of interpreting the law to allow commonplace conduct to be prosecuted”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court narrows anti-hacking law, worries about criminalizing common behavior.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Unusual Supreme Court majority narrows scope of computer anti-hacking law.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Draws Limit to Anti-Hacking Law; A 6-3 decision aligns three Trump nominees with three liberal justices.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Trump appointees on Supreme Court side with liberal wing in hacking case.”

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court limits prosecutors’ use of anti-hacking law.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court restricts scope of computer fraud law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Narrows Scope of U.S. Computer-Hacking Law.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court limits reach of computer crime law; The court said the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not cover people who ‘have improper motives for obtaining the information that is otherwise available to them.’”

Brian Fung, Ariane de Vogue, and Devan Cole of CNN report that “Supreme Court sides with police officer who improperly searched license plate database.”

Tyler Olson of Fox News reports that “Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh side with liberal Supreme Court justices in computer fraud case; Barrett warned government reading of law could ‘criminalize’ conduct like ’embellishing an online-dating profile.’”

Eric Geller and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Supreme Court narrows scope of sweeping cybercrime law; The justices agreed with a broad range of critics that prosecutors had been misusing the 35-year-old law.”

Chris Mills Rodrigo of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court narrows cybercrime law.”

And Barbara Leonard and Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service report that “Cop’s Nosing Around of Database Isn’t Computer Crime, High Court Rules; The court was divided Thursday on whether a police sergeant violated the law, as well as department policy, when he accessed license plate information as part of a bribe.”

“The Incredible Illinois Gerrymander: Democrats are even rigging state Supreme Court districts.” This editorial will appear in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Chances grow that Supreme Court will take up Maine’s ban on religious school funding”: Matthew Stone of The Bangor Daily News has an article that begins, “A new federal court opinion in Vermont improves the chances that a Maine case challenging the state’s ban on public funding for religious schools could end up before the nation’s highest court, according to a constitutional law scholar.”

“The Sound of Silence on Abortion”: Columnist Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Amicus Briefs on the Merits for the 2020 Supreme Court Term”: Adam Feldman has this post at The Juris Lab.

“F. Lee Bailey, brilliant, brash lawyer in high-profile trials, dies”: Joseph Kahn of The Boston Globe has this report.

“Supreme Court spokeswoman to step down after more than 20 years”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

And Marina Pitofsky of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court public information officer to step down.”

Yesterday, the Public Information Office of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a news release titled “Public Information Officer Kathleen L. Arberg Retirement Announcement.”

“Why Would We Expect Philosopher-Judges? Might the persistence of bad judges call into doubt the thesis that we should rely on good ones?” Greg Weiner has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.

“Fate of Obamacare in Limbo: Fight at Supreme Court Explained.” Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Court revives Gophers football player lawsuit, citing possible sex discrimination in gang-rape punishments”: Josh Verges of The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota has this report.

And Rochelle Olson of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Gopher football players’ gender discrimination lawsuit against the University of Minnesota can go forward; Federal Appeals Court revives claim in 2016 sex assault investigation.”

You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“MoneyGram Can’t Claim $38M Tax Deduction, 5th Circ. Says”: Law360 has this report (subscription required for access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued Tuesday.

“Federal judge dismisses Planned Parenthood lawsuit against City of Lubbock”: Gabriel Monte of The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal has this report.

And David Lee of Courthouse News Service reports that “Federal Judge Tosses Challenge to West Texas City’s Abortion Ban; Lubbock residents voted to make it a ‘sanctuary city for the unborn’ last month, a year after the City Council rejected an abortion ban over constitutionality concerns.”

Update: At “PrawfsBlawg,” Howard Wasserman has a post titled “No standing when abortion law privately enforced.” He also posted Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas at this link.

“New ruling says public dollars can go to religious schools”: Lola Duffort of VT Digger has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.

“A year after his COVID-19 recovery, Above the Law founder David Lat makes some big changes”: David Lat was Stephanie Francis Ward’s guest on this week’s new installment of ABA Journal’s “Asked & Answered” podcast.

“First Circuit Halts Wrongful Death Suit Brought by Families of Train Disaster; The 2013 train crash destroyed a large swath of a Canadian town and left 47 people dead”: David Wells of Courthouse News Service has this report on a noteworthy ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday regarding the effect on the time for appeal that a motion for reconsideration has in a case that is within a federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction because it is related to a pending bankruptcy proceeding.

Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court in Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Will Tennessee’s 48-hour abortion waiting period create ban? Appeals court hears arguments.” Mariah Timms of The Tennessean has this report.

Travis Loller of The Associated Press reports that “Tennessee appeals ruling in abortion waiting-period case.”

And Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Tennessee Urges Full Sixth Circuit to Revive Two-Day Abortion Waiting Period; The Volunteer State wants an en banc appeals court to reinstate a law that requires a woman to wait 48 hours before she can get an abortion, arguing similar restrictions in other states have been upheld as constitutional.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s initial en banc hearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Access online the Sixth Circuit‘s “June 2021 Courtroom Protocols” for in-person oral arguments: Via this link.

“Missouri Supreme Court won’t hear Kevin Strickland’s case. He’s innocent, prosecutors say.” Luke Nozicka of The Kansas City Star has this report.

“Supreme Court’s recent unanimous 9-0 decisions — are justices sending a message? Is the Supreme Court subtly signaling that it is not as rigidly ideological as Democrats and activists suggest?” Law professor Jonathan Turley has this essay online at Fox News.

“Settlement of Class Action Over Wesson Oil Claim Invalid; District Court Wasn’t Vigilant in Scrutinizing Accord Which Gives Lion’s Share of Funds to Lawyers, Lee Says”: Metropolitan News-Enterprise has this report.

And at “Above the Law,” Joe Patrice has a post titled “9th Circuit Judge Tries To Be Funny, Fails; But, I mean, he’s right about the Star Wars movies.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court will not take up Johnson & Johnson challenge of $2.1 billion cancer case award”: Robert Barnes has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

And in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Peter Loftus have an article headlined “Supreme Court Won’t Consider Johnson & Johnson Challenge to Baby Powder Judgment; Justices decline to hear company’s challenge to $2.1 billion judgment involving 20 women who alleged talcum powder caused cancer.”

“What Is America’s Spy Court Hiding From the Public?” David D. Cole, Jameel Jaffer, and Theodore B. Olson have this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Longtime Boise attorney and deputy AG will be Idaho’s newest state Supreme Court justice”: Jacob Scholl of The Idaho Statesman has this report.

And James Dawson of Boise State Public Radio reports that “Gov. Little Taps Colleen Zahn For The Idaho Supreme Court.”

Yesterday, the Office of Idaho Governor Brad Little issued a news release titled “Gov. Little appoints Colleen Zahn to Idaho Supreme Court.”

“Diversity finds another enemy: The Florida Supreme Court.” The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has published this editorial.

“Supreme Court Rules on Tribal Police and Immigrants’ Testimony; In unanimous decisions, the justices refused to suppress evidence found by a tribal officer and rejected a presumption in favor of immigrants’ credibility”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit’s rule that favors those seeking asylum.”

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Says Tribal Police Can Search Non-Indians on Reservations; Justices’ unanimous ruling further affirms limited sovereignty for indigenous nations.”

John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Tribal police may detain non-Native Americans on reservation highways.”

Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules tribal police have authority to detain non-Indians.”

And Karen Brown of New England Public Media reports that “Supreme Court Ruling Could Help Guatemalan Man Remain In Massachusetts.”

“Supreme Court Justice Rejects Church Challenge to Disaster Law”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s docket entries in the case via this link.

“Appeals court to consider Tennessee abortion waiting period”: The Associated Press has this report on an oral argument that the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is scheduled to hear this afternoon.

Once the initial en banc oral argument begins at 2 p.m. eastern time, you can access the live oral argument audio via this link.