“Trump goes after Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society in fury over court ruling; Trump’s attack came after the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down his tariffs, a blow to the primary pillar of his economic agenda”: Gregory Svirnovskiy and Josh Gerstein of Politico have this report.

“A Christian baker was sued for not serving a lesbian couple. The Supreme Court may hear her case. The debate over faith-based service refusals will soon be back in the national spotlight.” Kelsey Dallas of The Deseret News has this report.

“What is the U.S. Court of International Trade, which halted Trump’s tariffs? Federal judges ruled that the president went beyond his authority in imposing levies on goods imported from around the world.” Tobi Raji of The Washington Post has this report.

“Trump Officials Intensify Attacks on Judges as Court Losses Mount; White House reactions to unfavorable court rulings appeared designed to undermine confidence in the judiciary”: Luke Broadwater of The New York Times has this report.

“Will Trump Ignore Geographic Connections When Making Circuit Nominations? With the death of the blue slip, can the President just fill vacancies with the best available candidate?” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Bondi Eliminates ABA’s Role in Vetting Trump Judicial Picks; Continues trend from Trump first term, Biden presidency; Comes amid escalating tensions between ABA, Trump administration”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Trump Tariff Appeal Heads to Specialist Court Known for Patents; Federal Circuit has ‘immense’ power over trade policy; Court decided a previous Trump tariff case in 2018”: Michael Shapiro of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Chief Judge Questions Judicial Boycotts in Tossing Complaint; Dismissed complaint over judge not hiring Columbia clerks; Says boycotts may ‘embroil’ courts in public controversies”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.

You can access the order of Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton at this link.

As the order explains:

A judge’s participation in a hiring boycott against graduates of a private university does not fit the ordinary meaning of “political activity,” because the boycott is not directed at governmental actions or policies that are the focus of the political process. A boycott may be seen, however, as raising similar problems where judges seek through the allocation of publicly-funded employment opportunities (or other allocations of public funds) to influence the behavior of private institutions on matters of public concern. The boycott at issue here involves only thirteen federal judges and one private institution, but the practice—if approved and widely accepted—could proliferate. Judges will have different views on what causes are righteous and which institutions or entities should be targeted. Widespread judicial boycotting based on issues of the day may well have the potential to embroil the judiciary in extrajudicial public controversies and to lower public confidence in the courts among reasonable people. There is thus a substantial question whether judges cross an important line when they go beyond expressing their personal views in an effort to persuade and begin using their power as government officials to pressure private institutions to conform to the judges’ preferences. See Orin Kerr, Boycotting Law Schools in Clerk Hiring as a Way to Influence Law School Culture, Reason Magazine Online (Sept. 29, 2022).

“Kannon Shanmugam to join Harvard Corporation; Alumnus of College and HLS elected to University’s senior governing board”: The Harvard Gazette has this report.

And in news coverage, Janet Lorin of Bloomberg News reports that “Harvard Picks Conservative Lawyer to Serve on Powerful Board.”

“Appeals Court Allows Trump Tariffs to Stay in Effect for Now”: Erik Larson of Bloomberg News has this report.

You can access today’s order of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issuing a temporary administrative stay at this link.

“The Supreme Court May Not Step in and Save Trump’s Tariffs; The path forward for Trump will not get easier after a defeat at the U.S. Court of International Trade”: Columnist Ankush Khardori has this essay online at Politico.

“Second federal court blocks Trump tariffs, this time for Illinois toy importers; A federal judge blocked Trump’s tariffs for a pair of Illinois toy importers, the second ruling against the tariffs in as many days”: Bart Jansen of USA Today has this report on a decision that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued today.

“US May Take Trump Tariff Case to Supreme Court on Friday”: Erik Larson and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Bonus 153: Hurtling Into June; The unusually chaotic month that the justices have in front of them raises questions about whether the Court should continue to be committed to what is, effectively, an October-to-June calendar.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“The Supreme Court Undercuts Another Check on Executive Power; In leaping to defend the Trump Administration, the Court conveniently ignored a long-established precedent that prevented Presidents from firing independent-agency heads at will”: Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The New Yorker.

“Georgia Supreme Court says you must be 21 to carry handguns in public; 20-year-old’s lawsuit argued Georgia’s age requirement infringed on his rights”: Mark Niesse of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report on a unanimous ruling that the Supreme Court of Georgia issued yesterday.

“The Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon make final ruling on abortion. How did we get here?” Hope Karnopp of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“Supreme Court walks a tightrope as it confronts Trump’s power moves; The justices appear to be trying to avoid a direct conflict with the Trump administration while also blocking certain presidential actions”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.