“A federal judge has forcefully rejected a highly unusual lawsuit the Trump administration filed against 15 other judges whom the Justice Department accused of hindering the president’s mass deportation agenda,” Politico reports.

“In tossing out the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen — a Trump appointee — lamented what he described as the White House’s months-long ‘smear’ of the federal judiciary.”

“The Supreme Court’s landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn’t the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall,” CNN reports.

“From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump’s effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are ‘outdated,’ ‘poorly reasoned’ or ‘egregiously wrong.’”

Adam Liptak: “Taken together, the court’s actions in election cases in recent years have shown great tolerance for partisan gamesmanship and great skepticism about federal laws on campaign spending and minority rights. The court’s rulings have been of a piece with its conservative wing’s jurisprudential commitments: giving states leeway in many realms, insisting on an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment and casting a skeptical eye on government racial classifications.”

“If Republicans succeed in pulling off an aggressively partisan gerrymander of congressional districts in Texas, they will owe the Supreme Court a debt of gratitude,” the New York Times reports.

“In the two decades Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has led the Supreme Court, the justices have reshaped American elections not just by letting state lawmakers like those in Texas draw voting maps warped by politics, but also by gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and amplifying the role of money in politics…”

“Taken together, the court’s actions in election cases in recent years have shown great tolerance for partisan gamesmanship and great skepticism about federal laws on campaign spending and minority rights. The court’s rulings have been of a piece with its conservative wing’s jurisprudential commitments: giving states leeway in many realms, insisting on an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment and casting a skeptical eye on government racial classifications.”

President Donald Trump warned U.S. courts against blocking his tariff policy, citing its “positive impact” on the stock market and saying such a move could cause a severe economic downturn, CNBC reports.

Said Trump: “If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date, in an attempt to bring down or disturb the largest amount of money, wealth creation and influence the U.S.A. has ever seen, it would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money and honor.”

He added: “It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION.”

“Justice Department lawyers have long enjoyed a professional benefit when they appear in court. As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth,” the New York Times reports.

“But in the past several months, as members of President Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them, some jurists have started to show an angry loss of faith in the people and the institution they once believed in most…”

“Ultimately, legal experts say, the doubts that judges have begun to express about the department and those who represent it could have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.”

Rick Hasen: “Reading the tea leaves from cryptic Supreme Court orders can be perilous business because the justices are not bound by the questions they ask at oral argument, the offhand comments they make at a judicial conference, or even their monumental ‘shadow docket’ rulings on emergency petitions that have become all too common.”

“But a technical briefing order in a long pending case out of Louisiana, posted on the court’s website after 5 p.m. on a Friday in August, was ominous. The order was likely intended to obscure that SCOTUS is ready to consider striking down the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2.”

“Such a monumental ruling, likely not coming until June 2026, would change the nature of congressional, state, and local elections all across the country, and likely stir major civil rights protests as the midterm election season heats up.”

“The Supreme Court said Friday that it will weigh the constitutionality of a common form of redistricting used to protect the voting power of Black and Hispanic voters: the drawing of congressional districts where racial minorities make up at least half the population,” Politico reports.

“Experts in election law said the move signals that the court may be poised to further narrow the Voting Rights Act.”

Rick Hasen: “The stakes here are enormous; I was worried the Court would put the VRA’s constitutionality into question when there was this great delay in the Court ordering supplemental briefing. Something big was happening behind the scenes. And now we know.”

“Justice Brett Kavanaugh said on Thursday that the Supreme Court should be wary of providing detailed explanations for its rulings on emergency applications like those arising from challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to transform the federal government,” the New York Times reports.

Said Kavanaugh: “There can be a risk, in writing the opinion, of a lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that’s not going to reflect the final view.”

Quinta Jurecic: “Emil Bove has demonstrated that total sycophancy to the president can be a fantastic career move.”

Time: “White House officials and a close circle of conservative lawyers are preparing for President Donald Trump to be able to hit the ground running if a Supreme Court vacancy opens up during the remaining three and a half years of his second term.

“The discussions are in early stages and focus on finding a nominee in the mold of Samuel Alito, 75, and Clarence Thomas, 77, the two oldest justices… A White House official said it was ‘premature’ to say the White House was getting ready for a vacancy.”

“Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order,” CNN reports.

“The answer, a half-year later, is no.”

“That was underscored this month by the court’s decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection.”

“Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances.”

“When the Supreme Court issued a blockbuster decision in June limiting the authority of federal judges to halt Trump administration policies nationwide, the president was quick to pronounce the universal injunction all but dead,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“One month later, states, organizations and individuals challenging government actions are finding a number of ways to notch wins against the White House, with judges in a growing list of cases making clear that sweeping relief remains available when they find the government has overstepped its authority.”

“In at least nine cases, judges have explicitly grappled with the Supreme Court’s opinion and granted nationwide relief anyway.”

Don Moynihan: “A couple of months ago, the major concern was what would happen when Trump defied the courts. A more complicated picture is now emerging. One that mixes quiet but unmistakable defiance of court decisions by the Trump administration with encouragement from the six Republican-appointed Justices who sit atop the judicial branch.”

“This is an arguably worse scenario, since it provides a veneer of legalism even as it replaces the rule of law with rule by law, where Trump is allowed to determine the nature of that law.”

“The emerging pattern is that the Trump administration is checked by the lower courts, slow-walks compliance, and sometimes asks SCOTUS for help, which they usually provide via poorly reasoned opinions or no opinions at all. The Supreme Court often does not feel the need to explain what are effectively constitutional amendments that rebalance the separation of powers, feeding perceptions of the court as a partisan actor.”

“The Supreme Court Wednesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to remove the Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, allowing the administration to continue to seize control of the federal bureaucracy while litigation continues in the lower courts,” the Washington Post reports.