“War Crimes Hearing Gives Public Virtual Look Inside a Secret C.I.A. Prison; Years after the agency’s ‘black site’ program was shut down, details are slowly emerging during trials at Guantánamo Bay”: Carol Rosenberg of The New York Times has this report.

“Why the $4.5 Billion School E-Rate Program Is Headed to the Supreme Court; The high court declined to take a different case related to a school resource officer’s use of a Taser on a student with a disability”: Mark Walsh of Education Week has this report.

“During Watergate, the Supreme Court spoke with one voice. Can it do the same in Trump’s case?” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“85. Opinion Announcements (and Why They Should Be Live-Streamed); Justice Sotomayor’s oral dissent in the bump stocks case highlights why the Supreme Court should allow those who can’t be in the courtroom to hear the justices’ hand-down statements.” Steve Vladeck has this post at his “One First” Substack site.

“Mifepristone Stays on the Market”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

And last Friday’s bonus episode of the podcast was titled “The Textualist Case for Mass Shootings.”

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

“Judge Liles Burke appears eager and ready to sanction LGBTQ civil rights lawyers; A Friday order that some lawyers turn over a document prepared in the early days of the Alabama judge-shopping ‘inquiry’ strongly suggests Burke has made up his mind”: Chris Geidner has this post at his Substack site.

“Pressure builds on Congress after Supreme Court’s ruling on bump stocks”: Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times have this report.

“Judicial Notice (06.16.24): Out Of Control; Hunter Biden gets convicted, Justice Barrett takes charge, a rap star’s trial goes off the rails, and a Boston law firm winds up on the ropes.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Biden warns Trump could select two more Supreme Court justices if re-elected; During a fundraising event in Los Angeles, Biden alluded to the upside-down flag controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito”: Summer Concepcion and Sarah Dean of NBC News have this report.

“In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case.” Adam Unikowsky has this post at his Substack site, “Adam’s Legal Newsletter.”

“How John Roberts Lost His Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this guest essay online at The New York Times.

“Biden’s LBGTQ+ Guidance for Schools Blocked by Sixth Circuit; Decision blocks guidance from enforcement in 20 states; Judges appeared skeptical of DOJ’s positions in oral arguments”: Eric Heisig of Bloomberg Law has this report.

And Dave Byrnes of Courthouse News Service reports that “Block on federal guidance against anti-LGBTQ discrimination survives challenge in Sixth Circuit; The decision comes on the heels of a similar ruling from a federal judge in Texas earlier this week.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court overturns federal bump stock ban, siding with Austin gun dealer; Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, sued over the ban; The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him in a 6-3 decision Friday”: Dante Motley of The Texas Tribune has this report.

“Mifepristone Ruling Sends a Message About Abortion Politics; The Supreme Court’s narrow, procedural ruling is a scolding for the judges who let the flimsy case get this far”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Texas Supreme Court rejects case that could have imperiled IVF access; The justices allowed a lower court’s opinion to stand, and, for now, sidestepped the question of whether a frozen embryo has the same rights as a living child”: Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune has this report.

And Ryan Autullo of Bloomberg Law reports that “Texas Supreme Court Declines to Classify Embryos as Children; Decision protects embryo destruction under abortion ban; Divorced woman said embryos are children, not property.”

“Opinionpalooza: SCOTUS Says Yes to Bump Stocks, No to Gun Safety Regulation; Justice Clarence Thomas overturns the bump stock ban in his deadly Garland v Cargill majority opinion.” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“A Win for Trump — and Free Speech — at the Supreme Court; The justices resolved a trademark dispute over ‘Trump too small’ shirts by saying peddle whatever you want, just don’t piggyback on someone else’s fame”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started; An emerging coalition that views Donald J. Trump’s agenda as a threat to democracy is laying the groundwork to push back if he wins in November, taking extraordinary pre-emptive actions”: Charlie Savage, Reid J. Epstein, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan of The New York Times have this report.

“Supreme Court’s Bump Stock Ruling Is Dystopian Nonsense; In Garland v. Cargill, the conservative justices dispensed with logic and embraced a dangerous, hyper-literal textualism”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Supreme Court’s Leisurely Pace Will Produce Pileup of Late June Rulings; Even as the size of the court’s docket has shrunk, it has deferred a larger share of its decisions to the very end of its term”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

“The Supreme Court Ruling in the Starbucks Case Proves the Law Won’t Save Labor”: Jaz Brisack has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Supreme Court’s abortion pill ruling puts new focus on conservative Trump judge in Texas”: John Fritze and Tierney Sneed of CNN have this report.

“One Week That Revealed the Struggles of the Anti-Abortion Movement; The movement looks for a path forward: ‘Is the goal the absolute abolition of abortion in our nation?’” Elizabeth Dias of The New York Times has this report.

“En Banc Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Campaign Finance Restriction”: Trane Robinson has this post at this “Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog.”

“Alabama Law Review: A Tribute to Twenty Years on the Bench — Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr.; With contributions by Justice Thomas, Attorney General Sessions, and many Pryor clerks/mentees who became judges.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” linking to the individual contributions. You can access the law review issue via this link (scroll down).

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

1. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court in United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC. No. 22-1238. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, No. 22-674. Justice Jackson issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976. Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“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.