“Two Dan Sullivans to Appear on Alaska Senate Ballot, State High Court Rules; Republicans had sought the removal of a little-known candidate with the same name as the incumbent senator, arguing that he was not a ‘good faith’ candidate”: Kellen Browning of The New York Times has this report.

You can access today’s order of the Supreme Court of Alaska at this link.

“Supreme Court Mail Ballot Ruling Deals New Blow to Trump’s Election Plans; The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state laws allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day are legal; The decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for President Trump’s efforts to regulate elections”: Emily Davies and Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times have this report.

Justin Jouvenal and Patrick Marley of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day can be counted; A decision against such ballots could have upended election procedures in states across the country ahead of the midterm elections.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court allows late-arriving mail ballots, leaving California’s system unaffected.”

Louise Radnofsky and James Romoser of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Lets States Count Mailed Ballots Received After Election Day; Decision rebuffs Republican National Committee’s efforts to end grace periods for some late-arriving votes that were postmarked by Election Day.”

Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen of USA Today report that “Supreme Court OKs late-arriving mailed ballots in loss for Trump.”

And Susan Ferrechio of The Washington Times reports that “Trump calls Supreme Court ballot decision ‘tremendous loss,’ demands passage of voter ID bill.”

“Supreme Court Puts Limits on Cellphone Location Data Searches; The case involved ‘geofence’ searches, which allow law enforcement to find suspects and witnesses by sweeping up location data from cellphones near crime scenes”: Ann E. Marimow and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.

Julian Mark and Gerrit De Vynck of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court says police need a warrant to obtain Google location data; The majority found that a request by police for Google to turn over a suspect’s location history constituted a search protected by the Constitution.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court limits police use of cellphone data to find crime suspects.”

Bart Jansen of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court hangs up on whether smartphone search was ‘reasonable’; The action leaves Okello Chatrie convicted of robbing a bank in Virginia in 2019 after police tracked him down by searching for smartphones in the area where robbery occurred.”

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court says police need warrants for ‘geofence’ searches to track cellphones near crimes.”

“Justices Expand Trump’s Power to Fire Officials; In twin rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fed’s independence and said its leaders could not be fired at will, but said President Trump could fire other independent regulators for any reason”: Ann E. Marimow of The New York Times has this report.

Colby Smith and Tony Romm of The New York Times report that “Supreme Court Victory for Fed Still Leaves It Vulnerable to Trump; President Trump promised to ‘take appropriate action immediately’ against Lisa Cook, the Fed governor he had tried to fire, even as the court affirmed that Fed officials can be fired only for cause.”

Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court expands Trump’s power over the federal bureaucracy; The justices struck down a longtime precedent letting Congress insulate agencies from political influence — but stopped short of giving Trump the same power over the Federal Reserve.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Trump may fire heads of independent agencies, but not the Federal Reserve.”

James Romoser and Nick Timiraos of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Blocks Trump From Firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook; In a pair of decisions, the court expands presidential authority over independent agencies — but the central bank is the notable exception.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has articles headlined “In loss for Trump, Supreme Court keeps Lisa Cook at the Fed; Though it’s not unheard of for presidents to pressure the Fed over interest rates, Trump is the first to try to fire a member of the central bank’s board” and “Supreme Court gives Trump more power over agencies, overturning precedent; After taking office, Trump declared that all federal agencies are under his control; ‘The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,’ the president said in a March address to Congress.”

Stephen Dinan and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court expands Trump’s firing powers — but imposes some limits; Firing of FTC commissioner was OK, firing of Federal Reserve member was not.”

In commentary, The New York Times has published an editorial titled “The Court’s Hypocrisy.”

Online at The New York Times, law professors Cass R. Sunstein and Philip Hamburger have a dueling guest essay titled “What Is the Supreme Court Doing to Presidential Power?”

The Washington Post has published an editorial titled “Lisa Cook’s close Supreme Court call; The Federal Reserve was one vote away from coming under the president’s thumb.”

Online at The Los Angeles Times, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an essay titled “The Supreme Court just handed the president even more power.”

And Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “A Supreme Court Split Decision on Executive Power; The President can fire agency heads — except for the Federal Reserve.”

“Liberal Wins on Mail Votes and ‘Geofencing’; Two big Supreme Court rulings, with Alito and conservatives in dissent”: This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“250th birthday minutes on the bench”: Mark Walsh has this “View from the Court” post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court Justices Report $2.4 Million in Book Income”: Justin Wise and Jordan Fischer of Bloomberg Law have this report.

Fix the Court has posted the disclosures online here.

“The Supreme Court Drew the Right Line on Trump’s Firing Spree”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Also online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “The Supreme Court Preserves Fed Independence — for Now.”

“The Supreme Court Rejected a Bonkers Idea About Voting by a 5–4 Margin. Next Time We Won’t Be So Lucky.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“SCOTUS Keeps Rewriting Gun History”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link and on YouTube.

“Luigi Mangione set to return to court for alleged murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO with defense strategy a mystery”: Ben Kochman of The New York Post has this report.

“Yoo to advise diGenova on probe into inquiries of Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia; The conservative law professor will consult with the Justice Department prosecutor on the investigation based in South Florida”: Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney of Politico have this report.

“Pa. Attorney General Dave Sunday talks Supreme Court’s Krasner ruling, abortion appeal; The high court recently gave Sunday’s office unprecedented authority over the DA’s post-conviction review process; He discussed that ruling and more in an interview with The Inquirer”: Jesse Bunch of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

“235. Hypothetical Jurisdiction in Mullin v. Doe; Justice Alito’s TPS opinion stakes out an expansive new claim for how courts can resolve ‘interim relief’ appeals; It’s a good thing Justices Gorsuch and Barrett (silently) refused to endorse it.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“The Roberts Court Shows Its True Colors; Using loopholes and cynical wordplay, the right-wing supermajority delivers a series of devastating decisions on legal immigration, plunging millions of lives into uncertainty”: You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.