“As Trump’s Documents Case Crawls Along, Questions About Judge Abound; Trial in Florida is nowhere in sight as Judge Aileen Cannon gives the former president’s legal team chances to argue against prosecution”: C. Ryan Barber of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

“The Vindication of Dobbs After Two Years; Letting voters decide on abortion has energized the democratic process”: This editorial will appear in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Tennessee Law Banning Transition Care for Minors; The move comes as states around the country have pushed to curtail transgender rights”: Abbie VanSickle of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Casey Parks of The Washington Post report that “Tennessee ban on gender transition care to be reviewed by Supreme Court; Supreme Court review comes after about half of U.S. states have passed bans or restrictions on gender transition care for minors.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court will decide if states may prohibit hormones for transgender teens.”

Jess Bravin and Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Weigh Bans on Transgender Medical Treatments; Justices agree to hear Biden administration’s challenge to Tennessee law banning gender-transition care for minors.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today has an article headlined “Are bans on gender-affirming care for minors constitutional? Supreme Court to decide. ‘This is a relatively new diagnosis with ever-shifting approaches to care over the past decade or two,’ a lower court judge said. The Biden administration said the court’s input was urgently needed.”

And Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear case involving state ban on gender care for juveniles.”

“The Supreme Court Keeps Misfiring on Guns; In its Rahimi opinion, the Court listened to our brief as historians and upheld restrictions on domestic abusers; But it was only a tiny victory because, when it comes to firearms, the justices continue to legislate from the bench”: Professors Holly Brewer and Laura F. Edwards have this essay online at Washington Monthly.

“Justice Kavanaugh, Umpires, and the ‘No Serious Person Approach’ to Constitutional Interpretation”: Eric Segall has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”

“Abortion Debate Shifts as Election Nears: ‘Now It’s About Pregnancy’; Two years after Roe was struck down, the conversation has focused on the complications that can come with pregnancy and fertility, helping to drive more support for abortion rights.” Kate Zernike of The New York Times has this report.

And Hadriana Lowenkron of Bloomberg News reports that “Republican Push to Limit Abortion Access Falters Two Years After Dobbs; Conservatives worry that fumbled efforts could depress turnout; Abortion access initiatives have boosted Democrats post-Dobbs.”

“In Abortion Cases, Legions of ‘Friends’ Seek to Persuade Supreme Court; A new study analyzed 50 years of friend-of-the-court briefs and found that abortion opponents were more relentless than their adversaries, with some reflected in the justices’ opinions”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Louisiana Parents Sue to Block Display of Ten Commandments in Schools; A law enacted last week requires the display of the commandments in every public classroom; The parents argued it ‘pressures students into religious observance’”: Rick Rojas of The New York Times has this report.

“Is Trump shielded from criminal charges as an ex-president? A nation awaits word from Supreme Court.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Louisiana Republicans write a guide for Alito and Thomas; Their Ten Commandments law has a small but powerful audience”: Lisa Needham has this post at the “Public Notice” Substack site.

“A Very DC Saturday Night”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Why an Immigration Case Has Sotomayor Writing About Abortion: The Supreme Court’s liberals don’t like seeing fundamental rights get narrower and narrower, whether that’s autonomy or marriage.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in seven cases.

“On this criminal sentencing ‘occasion,’ the Supreme Court abandoned logic”: Quin Hillyer has this essay online at Washington Examiner.

“Clarence Thomas and John Roberts Are at a Fork in the Road”: Columnist David French has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Two years after the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, meet the expert on post-Roe America”: Columnist Mark Z. Barabak has this essay online at The Los Angeles Times.

“Abortion access has won when it’s been on the ballot. That’s not an option for half the states.” Kimberlee Kruesi, Christine Fernando, and Leah Willingham of The Associated Press have this report.

“Will latest Supreme Court decision affect California bans on assault weapons, magazines?” Kevin Rector of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“The ‘Fix’ Is in With the Latest Attack on Clarence Thomas; A report from a self-styled non-ideological Supreme Court watchdog is filled with errors and omissions”: Mark Paoletta will have this op-ed in Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Rahimi Is Here and It Is Glorious”: You can access the new episode of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast via this link.

“Judicial Notice (06.23.24): Whose Originalism? A prominent professor attacks a conservative judge, Judge Cannon returns to the news, litigation boutiques announce bonuses, and a lateral hire comes undone.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“The Fifth Circuit’s Public Library Police: Do federal judges need to weigh in on ‘Larry the Farting Leprechaun’?” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.

“It’s Time for a Rahimi Pop Quiz!” Joseph Fishkin has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.

“Clarence Thomas was snubbed in the Supreme Court’s gun ruling. So were a few other people. There are clear winners and losers — but Chief Justice John Roberts got in a few digs for both sides, too.” Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.

“The Supreme Court Steps Back from the Brink on Guns; A new ruling upholds a law barring those under certain domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms — but the Court’s stance on gun laws remains trapped in ambiguity”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.

“Rahimi and The Roberts Court’s All New, Also Old, Second Amendment Doctrine: A (mostly) embarrassed Supreme Court majority tries to clean up sloppy (and deadly) Bruen with vague Rahimi. *Justice Thomas is not embarrassed.” You can access today’s new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“After gun control victory at Supreme Court, justices have other firearms cases in their sights; The latest ruling is likely the first of many in which gun rights advocates challenge restrictions; One of those cases could affect Hunter Biden’s recent conviction”: Lawrence Hurley and Dareh Gregorian of NBC News have this report.

“Crime Labs Are Drowning in Work. That Hurts Us All. In Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court again insisted that lab techs must testify in court about their findings. It’s a distraction from their day job.” Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court rules against Los Angeles couple denied visa in part over husband’s tattoos”: Andrea Castillo of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers; The decision amounted to a retreat from what had been an unbroken series of major decisions expanding gun rights that started in 2008”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic violence restraining orders; Narrowly tailored ruling did not address how the 2022 Bruen decision may impact other gun laws being challenged in lower courts.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects gun rights for people accused of domestic violence.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Says Domestic Abusers Can Be Denied Guns; Texas man who threatened ex-girlfriend loses Second Amendment rights.”

Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen of USA Today report that “Supreme Court upholds law banning domestic abusers from owning guns; The decision showed that a conservative court which has expanded gun rights also sees areas for limitations.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court rules dangerous people can be disarmed temporarily under Second Amendment.”

“The Supreme Court’s Thoughtful Gun Ruling; In Rahimi, the Justices uphold a law stripping guns from an alleged domestic abuser, but a debate breaks out over originalism and the Second Amendment”: This editorial will appear in Saturday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Trump’s Allies Say They’ll Enforce the Comstock Act. Believe Them.” Columnist Michelle Goldberg has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Louisiana’s Ten Commandments Law Signals a Broader Christian Agenda; Gov. Jeff Landry wants his state to be at the forefront of a national movement to advance legislation with a Christian worldview”: Rick Rojas, David W. Chen, and Elizabeth Dias of The New York Times have this report.

“Only Clarence Thomas Is Willing to Give a Gun to a Domestic Abuser; The 8-1 ruling should make clear that not all the conservative justices are on board with the new ‘history and tradition’ way of deciding cases”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“The Supreme Court Walks Back Clarence Thomas’ Guns Extremism”: Mark Joseph Stern has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision; US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices’ own incompetence.”

And at Balls and Strikes, Madiba K. Dennie has an essay titled “John Roberts Did a Very Bad Job Cleaning Up the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Mess; Two years after the decision in Bruen, the conservative justices aren’t so sure about this whole ‘history and tradition’ thing after all.”