“The Supreme Court limited public and media access to government records Monday by expanding a federal law’s definition of what can be deemed confidential,” USA Today reports.

“At issue was whether confidentiality, as used in a section of the Freedom of Information Act, means anything intended to be kept secret or only information likely to cause harm if publicized. The high court adopted the broader definition.”

“Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court, approaching the end of its current term, is due to issue rulings in the coming days in major cases including the Trump administration’s bid to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 census and efforts by voters to curb the partisan manipulation of electoral district boundaries,” Reuters reports.

“The Supreme Court on Monday said a person can be charged and tried in state and federal court for the same conduct without running afoul to the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns,” CNN reports.

“The case has implications for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is facing charges in New York State that are similar to the federal charges for which he has been tried.”

USA Today: “Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 7-2 opinion, joined by three conservative and three liberal colleagues. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.”

“The Supreme Court has ruled against the Virginia House of Delegates in a racial gerrymandering case that represents a victory for Democrats in the state,” The Hill reports.

“In the 5-4 ruling, the justices found that the House didn’t have the standing to appeal a lower court ruling that found that the new district maps must be used ahead of the 2020 election. Those new maps are already in use.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts began the Supreme Court’s term last fall seeking to assure the American public that his court does not ‘serve one party or one interest,'” the Washington Post reports.

“He will end it playing a pivotal role in two of the most politically consequential decisions the court has made in years. One initiative is to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census, which has fueled a partisan showdown on Capitol Hill. The other could outlaw the partisan gerrymandering techniques that were essential to Republican dominance at the state and congressional level over the past decade.”

The Hill: “With just two weeks left in the month of June, the justices have yet to issue rulings in 24 cases, including high-profile decisions that will affect the census citizenship question and partisan gerrymandering.”

“The final stretch may also signal how the new conservative majority will rule on other major cases down the line, providing a glimpse of some of the issues the justices could take up when their next term starts in October.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas complained at a recent event that a Smithsonian exhibit about him is factually incorrect, the Washington Post reports.

However, the source material is the justice’s own memoir.

Washington Post: “The court announced decisions Monday in only three minor cases. That leaves two dozen, including important rulings on racial and partisan gerrymandering, whether the 2020 Census will contain a controversial question on citizenship and the fate of a 40-foot cross built as a World War I memorial that stands on public land in the Maryland suburbs outside Washington.”

“The court will announce those outcomes and others during a string of decision days that will commence next week. The court usually finishes its work before the end of June.

New York Times: “Liberal activists, hoping for a chance to offset the growing conservative presence in the courts, have identified a pool of potential judicial vacancies that could remain out of Mr. Trump’s reach — scores of seats held by veteran judges appointed by Democrats who may be biding their time, awaiting the outcome of the 2020 presidential race.”

Said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice: “It is essential to be ready on Day 1 of a new administration with names to fill every vacancy. This is to start identifying people so the new president won’t waste a minute in addressing this need.”

“The initiative is called Building the Bench, and the Alliance for Justice is being joined in underwriting and supporting it by a number of other liberal advocacy groups and labor unions. A group of more than 30 law professors and lawyers will serve as an advisory board.”

USA Today: “The court’s four liberals have displayed irritation at its new, more conservative majority – including once in the middle of the night. And some of the five conservatives are showing impatience with the incremental pace of change.”

“This term, tempers have frayed on a variety of issues, from workers’ rights to the sanctity of Supreme Court precedents. In April, the court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to block workers from banding together in arbitration disputes. The four liberal justices were so incensed that each wrote a separate dissent. Their feud with [the] majority opinion featured what Scott Nelson of Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represented workers seeking to sue as a class, called ‘pointedness in the punctuation.’”

A new analysis finds Justice Brett Kavanaugh is the second most conservative justice on the Supreme Court next to Justice Clarence Thomas, on a measure that places judges on a liberal-conservative spectrum.

The most liberal are Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“The Supreme Court sidestepped major abortion cases, letting stand a lower-court ruling that Indiana cannot ban abortions for the purpose of sex, race or disability selection but allowing the state to regulate the disposal of fetal remains,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The court’s unsigned opinion appeared the product of a delicate compromise, and it stressed the justices weren’t ready—for now—to consider whether either law violates the Constitution.”

Washington Post: “The court said a part of the law dealing with disposal of the ‘remains’ of an abortion could go into effect. But it did not take up a part of the law stricken by lower courts that prohibited abortions because tests revealed an abnormality. The court indicated it would wait for other courts to weigh in before taking up that issue.”

“President Trump’s appeal of a subpoena from House Democrats to turn over his financial records will be heard by a court where snubbed Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland is the chief judge,” The Hill reports.

“Garland serves as the chief judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump’s lawyers are asking that court to review a federal judge’s order allowing House Oversight and Reform COmmittee’s subpoena to move forward.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday deferred acting on state efforts to put more restrictions on abortion, issuing a list of orders without mentioning two pending Indiana appeals,” Bloomberg reports.

“In one, the state is seeking to bar abortions motivated by the risk of a genetic disorder and require clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains. In the other, Indiana aims to reinstate a requirement that an ultrasound be performed at least 18 hours before an abortion… The court has been deliberating for months over the Indiana fetal-disposal and genetic-disorder law. Today’s inaction marks the 14th time the court has deferred action, suggesting an unusual amount of internal wrangling.”