“There’s a Time Bomb in Progressives’ Big Supreme Court Voting Case Win”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — founder of the “Election Law Blog” — has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections; The 6-to-3 majority dismissed the ‘independent state legislature’ theory, which would have given state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over federal elections”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rejects theory that would have meant radical changes to election rules.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects GOP claim that state lawmakers have full power over elections.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds State Courts’ Power to Prevent Gerrymanders; State constitutions can provide grounds to strike down skewed congressional maps.”

John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court rejects GOP call for unchecked power for state legislatures in US elections; In a win for voting rights groups, the court rejected the North Carolina GOP argument that state lawmakers should have extraordinary powers over election rules.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court says state courts can review election law, rejects independent state legislator theory.”

“Supreme Court Puts First Amendment Limits on Laws Banning Online Threats; The case concerned Billy Counterman, a Colorado man who became obsessed with a singer-songwriter, sending her disturbing messages on Facebook”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court says a conviction for online threats violated 1st Amendment; Prosecutors must show that a person responsible for threats understood the threatening nature of that speech, justices say.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court makes it harder to prosecute online stalkers.”

Jan Wolfe and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Raises Bar on Prosecuting Online Stalkers; Addressing what constitutes a ‘true threat,’ court throws out a cyberstalking conviction.”

John Fritze of USA Today has a report headlined “Stalking or free speech? Critics say Supreme Court just made it harder to stop stalkers.”

And Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justices limit reach of threat-speech laws, rule prosecutors must show intent to harm.”

“Supreme Court Allows Unusual Pennsylvania Law on Corporate Suits; A novel Pennsylvania law requires corporations that do business in the state to consent to being sued there, even if the suits have nothing to do with the state”: Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Gives State Courts More Power Over Corporate Defendants; Norfolk Southern loses its bid to limit exposure to state courts.”

And Lydia Wheeler of Bloomberg Law reports that “State Registration Law Feared by Business Upheld by Justices.”

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

1. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch announced the judgment of the Court in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, and issued the opinion of the Court in various respects. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in large measure, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. And Justice Barrett issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271. Justice Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Alito joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Federal judge defends Clarence Thomas in new book, rejects ‘pot shots’ at Supreme Court”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.

“Samuel Alito Joins the Supreme Court’s Billionaires’ Club”: Columnist Jamelle Bouie has this essay online at The New York Times.

“After Affirmative Action Ends: The next big question for school admissions will likely be the legality of ‘race-neutral’ methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies.” Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.