“For The Post, a Supreme black eye; Deference to Justice Alito hands a scoop to the New York Times”: Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple has this essay online at that publication.

“Georgia Appeals Court Stays Most Proceedings in Trump Election Case; The order means the prosecution of Donald J. Trump in Georgia is effectively frozen, at least through the presidential election”: Richard Fausset of The New York Times has this report.

“Trump’s Vows to Prosecute Rivals Put Rule of Law on the Ballot; Donald Trump’s promise to seek retribution challenges long-established norms; The election could hinge in part on what kind of justice system the country believes it has now and wants in the future”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Trump’s gun license expected to be revoked after conviction in hush money trial; The former president’s gun license was suspended when he was indicted, a NYPD spokesperson said”: By Jonathan Dienst, Tom Winter, and Megan Lebowitz of NBC News have this report.

“Alito’s account of the upside-down flag doesn’t fully add up. Here’s why. A look at the major discrepancies in Justice Samuel Alito’s comments about controversial flags flown at his property and what he still has not fully answered.” Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post has this report.

“Trump wants the Supreme Court to toss out his conviction. Will they? It’s hard to see how they’d do it legally, but this Court has a history of reading the law creatively.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.

“How a couple found themselves tangled in Texas’ strict abortion laws after miscarriage; The woman was allegedly denied a surgical abortion option at two facilities after her fetus’ heartbeat stopped”: Marin Wolf of The Dallas Morning News has this report.

“Using Math to Analyze the Supreme Court Reveals an Intriguing Pattern; The conservative wing isn’t always aligned, and that leads to some surprising outcomes”: Sarah Isgur and professor Dean Jens have this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Merrick Garland, Three Special Counsels and a Justice Department Under Fire; The attorney general has tried to stay above the political fray while overseeing investigations into Trump, Biden and his son”: Sadie Gurman and Aruna Viswanatha of The Wall Street Journal have this report.

“The Verdict Is In on the Supreme Court”: Columnist Maureen Dowd has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Pa. Supreme Court to weigh life sentences for felony murder; A case involving a 36-year-old from Allegheny County could open the door to eventual freedom for others convicted of felony murder — involvement in a crime in which a death occurs; Will Marie ‘Mechie’ Scott, 70, see an end to half a century behind bars?” Miranda Jeyaretnam and Peter Hall of PublicSource have this report.

“More Supreme Court Security Funds Proposed by House Republicans; House appropriators include 5% bump for Supreme Court expenses; Increase would pay for justices’ residential protection”: Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Texas’ New Plan for Responding to the Horror of Its Abortion Ban: Blame Doctors.” Law professor Mary Ziegler has this Jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Will Zantac ruling make Delaware a mass torts magnet?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Reuters has this post.

“Protecting the NRA’s Freedom of Speech Rights Protects Us All”: David Cole has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.

“Delaware Chief Justice Emphasizes Independence, Like His Father; Childhood conversations formed ideals of judges’ independence; Seitz was appointed as head of Delaware’s judiciary in 2019”: Jennifer Kay of Bloomberg Law has this report.

“Appeals judges halt Atlanta DEI grant fund for Black female-led businesses; Panel decision comes amid legal efforts to challenge diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the private sector”: Mirtha Donastorg of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

Julian Mark and Taylor Telford of The Washington Post report that “Appeals court blocks Fearless Fund from awarding grants to Black women; A panel of the 11th Circuit, reversing a lower court ruling, says the venture capital firm may not issue the $20,000 grants while the legal case plays out.”

Erin Mulvaney of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Blocks Venture Firm’s Grant Program for Black Women; Panel sides with opponent of affirmative action who challenged Fearless Fund’s awards meant to boost minority startups.”

Jessica Guynn of USA Today reports that “Fearless Fund blocked from giving grants only to Black women in victory for DEI critics.”

Alexandra Olson of The Associated Press has an article headlined “A grant program for Black women business owners is discriminatory, appeals court rules.”

And Nicquel Terry Ellis of CNN reports that “Federal appeals court blocks Fearless Fund from issuing grants to only Black women.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link. Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom delivered the opinion of the court, while Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum issued a dissenting opinion.

“Speech Under the Shadow of Punishment: For years, universities have been less inclined to protect speech and quicker to sanction it; After this spring’s protests, it will be difficult to turn back.” Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen has this Daily Comment online at The New Yorker.

“Bilateral Judicial Reform”: Law professor Josh Blackman has posted this article at SSRN.

“Todd Blanche for Former President Trump on For the Defense Podcast with David Oscar Markus”: You can watch the interview on YouTube via this link.

“Judicial Notice (06.02.24): From The White House To The Big House? Trump’s possible sentence and arguments on appeal, a former feeder judge’s attack on SCOTUS, a lawsuit against Foley, and Cooley’s high-profile hire.” David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.

“Flags, Feuds, and Roberts’ Rebuff”: You can access today’s new episode of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast via this link.

“Will the Supreme Court Step Into Trump’s Hush Money Conviction? There are some alarmingly unconstitutional calls for the High Court to step in; will the conservative Justices take the bait?” You can access the new episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast via this link.

“Justice Alito Fails Both Constitutional Law and Property Law”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”

“A Felon in the Oval Office Would Test the American System; Some are wondering how the Constitution’s checks and balances, meant to hold presidents accountable, would work if the next president elected were already a felon”: Peter Baker of The New York Times has this news analysis.

“Thurgood Marshall Was My Mentor. He’d Be Furious with the Court Today. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. The Supreme Court justice’s vision is betrayed daily in an America in which schools remain separate and unequal.” Law professor Sheryll Cashin has this essay online at Politico Magazine.

“Can State Supreme Courts Preserve — or Expand — Rights? With a lopsided conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, progressive activists are seeking legal opportunities in state constitutions.” Eyal Press has this article in the June 10, 2024 issue of The New Yorker.

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

“I was a law clerk for Justice Alito. He must recuse himself from hearing cases involving Donald Trump. Flying the U.S. flag upside down, once a signal of distress, has become a symbol of those who reject the results of the 2020 presidential election. When Alito did so, it was indeed a distress call.” Professor Susan Sullivan has this essay online at The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“The (small) mystery of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s stocks has been solved; Newly unredacted disclosure forms show the judge owns at least $5 million in stock from the supermarket chain Publix, where his grandmother worked for decades”: Tobi Raji of The Washington Post has this report.

“Wait, We’ve Been Flying the Flag the Alitos Had? San Francisco Takes It Down. Critics slammed Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. after the ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag was flown outside his vacation home, but it had billowed in the heart of San Francisco for 60 years.” Heather Knight of The New York Times has this report.

“Shooting range argues Second Amendment includes protections for its business; A proposed 1,000-yard outdoor shooting range designed for rifle training is protected by the right to bear arms, Oakland Tactical Supply argued before the Sixth Circuit”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service had this report back in November 2023.

Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this decision ruling against the shooting range.

“Donald Trump needs YOUR HELP to get vengeance on the evil RULE OF LAW: Any little bit helps toward freeing this nation from the iron thumb of the justice system!” Columnist Alexandra Petri has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Alito’s Jan. 6 Flag Defense Is Just Weird Gender Politics; The justice wants us to think his wife acted independently; But his defense wallows in dated stereotypes about marriage roles”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

“Texas Supreme Court rejects challenge brought by 20 women denied abortions, upholds ban”: Bayliss Wagner of The Austin American-Statesman has this report.

Eleanor Klibanoff of The Texas Tribune reports that “Texas Supreme Court rejects challenge to abortion laws; The court ruled against 20 women who said they were denied medically necessary abortions, saying the medical exceptions in the law were broad enough.”

And Janelle Griffith of NBC News reports that “Texas Supreme Court rejects challenge to state’s abortion ban over exceptions for dangerous pregnancy complications; The lawsuit was filed last year by a group of women who said they were denied abortions even when issues arose in pregnancy that endangered their lives.”

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consists of the opinion of the court and two concurring opinions (here and here).