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.”

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

1. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court in Texas v. New Mexico, No. 141, Orig. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Amy Coney Barrett joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court in Department of State v. Munoz, No. 23-334. Justice Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Thomas each filed a concurring opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined in full and Justice Jackson joined in part. And Justice Jackson issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each issued an opinion concurring in part. And Justice Alito issued an opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

5. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915. Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson each issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Supreme Court upholds Californian’s drug trafficking conviction that leaned on expert’s opinion”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Arrest Said to Be Politically Motivated; Sylvia Gonzalez, a Texas city councilwoman, said officials violated the First Amendment by arresting her after she criticized the city manager”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court sides with ex-councilwoman in her claim of retaliatory arrest.”

“Democrats seek to repeal Comstock abortion rule, fearing Trump crackdown; The Comstock Act, an 1873 law that bans abortion-related materials from being sent through the mail, could be used by the GOP to restrict abortion nationwide”: Dan Diamond and Caroline Kitchener of The Washington Post have this report.

“Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Tax Provision; The dispute, which was closely watched by experts, involved a one-time foreign income tax, but many saw it as a broader challenge to pre-emptively block Congress from passing a wealth tax”: Abbie VanSickle and Jim Tankersley of The New York Times have this report.

Ann E. Marimow and Julie Zauzmer Weil of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court upholds Trump-era tax provision on offshore earnings; Some viewed the challenge to the one-time tax on offshore earnings as an effort to preemptively block Congress from creating a wealth tax.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds a tax on corporate wealth held overseas.”

Jess Bravin and Richard Rubin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Tax on Foreign Investments; Decision leaves open other questions over federal taxing powers.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court decision saves Trump-era tax change, dodges big loss in federal tax revenue.”

And Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules against couple challenging part of Trump’s 2017 tax reforms.”

“A dispute between Egg Harbor and a popular restaurant has just been settled by the Wisconsin Supreme Court; The Door County village condemned a strip of property at Shipwrecked Brewpub to build a sidewalk, which the property owner claimed was illegal by state statute”: Christopher Clough of The Green Bay Press-Gazette has this report.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Ilya Somin has a post titled “Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Sidewalks are not ‘Pedestrian Ways’ — thus Allowing Local Governments to Use Eminent Domain to Take Property to Build Them; The close 4-3 decision might well become a staple of textbooks.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin at this link.

“Thou Shalt Not Post the Ten Commandments in the Classroom”: Columnist David French has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Unpublished Opinions: A Response to Judge Jerry Smith; Unpublished opinions are a growing threat to the rule of law.” Steven Calabresi had this post earlier today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.” He later retracted all the juicy parts.

“For Judge in Trump Documents Case, Unusual Rulings Are Business as Usual; Judge Aileen Cannon has repeatedly proven willing to hear out even far-fetched arguments from the former president’s legal team, including a challenge to the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith”: Alan Feuer and Eileen Sullivan of The New York Times have this news analysis.

“John Kerry Yodels for Alito Filibuster; His fellow Democrats cringe at his Davos folly”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.

“La.’s Ten Commandments law will test religion-friendly courts, experts say; The state’s Republican governor signed a measure requiring taxpayer-financed schools to prominently post a specific version of the commandments by Jan. 1”: Michelle Boorstein and Danielle Paquette of The Washington Post have this report.

“A Supreme Court Mistake on Wealth Taxes: Five Justices open the door to taxing unrealized gains in assets; Democrats will walk through it.” This editorial will appear in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “Why Brett Kavanaugh Shot Down a Fake Case That Would Have Blown Up the Tax Code.”

Online at Balls and Strikes, Jay Willis has an essay titled “The Conservative Justices Picked a Different Day to Kill a Wealth Tax; The Supreme Court’s opinion in Moore v. United States didn’t give conservative activists everything they wanted; But it gave them good reason to be optimistic about the future.”

And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court’s new tax decision is great news for billionaires; Most of the justices voted not to blow up the US tax code, but the opinion has bad news for progressive proponents of wealth taxes.”