“Supreme Court, in Starbucks Ruling, Curbs Labor Regulator’s Authority; In a blow to the National Labor Relations Board, the justices made it more difficult to order employers to reinstate fired workers”: Noam Scheiber and Santul Nerkar of The New York Times have this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for Starbucks, limits power of judges to protect fired union organizers.”

And Erin Mulvaney, Heather Haddon, and Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Sides With Starbucks in Challenge to Labor Board; Court rules some judges have made it too easy for NLRB to get terminated workers reinstated.”

“The Dishonorable Attack on the Alitos: A left-wing activist impressed her comrades, hardened her foes, and got attention. So what?” Columnist Peggy Noonan has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Trademark ‘Trump Too Small’; The decision was unanimous but fractured in rationale, with several justices objecting to the majority’s use of a history-based test”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Justin Jouvenal and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rejects attempt to trademark ‘Trump Too Small’; The Biden administration asked the justices to uphold the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to deny the patent application from attorney Steve Elster.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects California man’s attempt to trademark Trump T-shirts.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “‘Trump too small’. Supreme Court says jab at Trump can’t be trademarked; The man behind the case wanted to sell T-shirts with the phrase he said conveys the idea that Trump and his policies ‘are diminutive’; It brought some levity to the dry world of Trademark law.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules against man trying to trademark ‘Trump too small.’“

“The Supreme Court’s abortion pill case is only a narrow and temporary victory for abortion; The decision is unanimous, but it leaves open two routes Republicans could take to pull mifepristone from the market”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

Online at The New York Times, columnist Jesse Wegman has an essay titled “The Abortion Pill Stays Legal. But for How Long?”

Online at The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an essay titled “The real threat to abortion meds is Trump himself; A unanimous court saved mifepristone; But more formidable challenges to abortion medication loom.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Ruling Should Satisfy Nobody.”

And online at Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “There’s a Time Bomb Hidden In the Supreme Court’s Abortion Pills Decision; The justices turned away a cartoonishly dumb legal theory — but also laid the groundwork to further the goals of the conservative legal movement in the future.”

“Supreme Court Maintains Broad Access to Abortion Pill; The decision does not eliminate efforts to restrict the availability of the pill”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and David Ovalle of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court upholds broad access to key abortion pill mifepristone; Ever since the high court eliminated the right to abortion in 2022, medications to terminate pregnancy have grown in importance and been challenged in court.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds FDA’s approval of abortion pills for early pregnancies.”

Laura Kusisto and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge, Preserving Wide Access to Drug; Justices hand loss to antiabortion groups who sought to restrict most common method for ending a pregnancy.”

Maureen Groppe and Bayliss Wagner of USA Today report that “Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication mifepristone; First approved in 2000, mifepristone is now used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the nation and is a reason the total number of abortions has increased.”

And lex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court dismisses challenge to abortion pill, says pro-life doctors lack standing.”

“Ted Kennedy’s CAP Attack on Alito Backfires; Senate Democrat’s bombast collapses into farce”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“What Exactly Did Justice Alito Say That Was Wrong?” Law professor Marc O. DeGirolami has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

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

1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, No. 23-235. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Clarence Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III in Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704. Justice Kavanaugh issued an opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. joined, concurring in part. Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued an opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined in full and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in part, concurring in part. And Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367. Justice Jackson issued an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.