The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today in favor of participants in employee retirement plans who object to companies' investment decisions that eat into retirement savings, WMC News 5 reports. The justices revived claims by current and former employees of energy company Edison International who argued that the company chose mutual funds with excessive fees. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate decision in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer. People in charge of investment options have an ongoing responsibility to monitor the situation, Breyer said. "The continuing duty to review investments includes a duty to remove imprudent investments," Breyer said. The AP has more.

A unanimous Supreme Court today ruled that the government can't prevent a convicted felon who is barred from possessing firearms from trying to sell his guns after they are confiscated by authorities. The justices sided with Tony Henderson, a former U.S. Border Patrol agent who agreed to turn over his collection of 19 firearms to the FBI as a condition of release after he was arrested and charged with distributing marijuana. Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan said letting a convicted felon sell or transfer guns is allowed as long as a court is satisfied that the person getting the weapons won't give the felon control over them. The Herald Courier has more from the Associated Press.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked for the views of the Obama administration on a dispute between three states over Colorado’s 2012 legalization of marijuana. The action is a sign that the high court may be interested in the dispute, the Blog of Legal Times reports. The suit, brought by the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma, does not challenge the legalization of marijuana but questions the manufacture and sale of the drug across state lines.

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal judges have authority, though limited, to make sure the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying hard enough to settle charges of job discrimination before filing lawsuits against employers. WRCB has the Associated Press story.

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard a challenge to Oklahoma’s execution protocol over the plea of death row inmates to outlaw the sedative midazolam. During the session, several justices gave voice to larger concerns. "There are other ways to kill people, regrettably, that are painless," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. Justice Antonin Scalia said more effective drugs have been "rendered unavailable by the abolitionist movement." Justice Samuel Alito referred to a "guerrilla war" against executions by death penalty opponents working to limit the supply of more effective drugs. SCOTUSBlog offers an analysis.

In a 5-4 decision today in Williams Yulee v. The Florida State Bar, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on direct solicitation of campaign donations by judicial candidates. The case asked the court to consider a First Amendment challenge to a Florida rule that prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. In her concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg cited a poll commissioned by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice noting that 87 percent of voters believe advertisements purchased by interest groups during judicial elections can have either “some” or “a great deal” of influence on an elected judge’s later decisions. "Today’s decision helps judges, by saving them from the compromising job of raising cash from people whose cases they will decide," Justice at Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg said. "And it helps the public, by reassuring them that they will not find themselves in court before a judge who has received a check directly from the opposing party in their case.” American Bar Association President William C. Hubbard praised the ruling, saying it "underscores the importance of an independent judiciary to the rule of law."  SCOTUSBlog and ABA Journal have more.

The U.S. Supreme Court offered tickets for three-minute views of the arguments in yesterday's Obergefell v. Hodges for those who did not get seats for the historic case about whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and whether states must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. The ABAJournal reports the court also released audio for the day's events. Couples from Memphis and Knoxville, who were among the plaintiffs, reacted to the historic day in these Memphis Flyer and News Sentinel articles. WCYB looks at the different stands of two attorneys general: Virginia's attorney general is for it while Tennessee's is against it. Read excerpts from all the arguments.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today about whether states have the power to ban same-sex marriage and whether states with bans must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. The first hour of arguments focused on the constitutional right to marry. Most media coverage suggested that Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not appear ready to endorse that position. Listen to the audio feed from that debate. In the second hour, Tennessee Deputy Solicitor Joseph Whalen had his chance to address the court on the question of recognizing marriages from other states. Listen to the audio from that exchange. News wrap ups from the day are available from Scotublog, which was live blogging from the courthouse, and National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, who contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday breathed new life into the religious objections of Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee to the Affordable Care Act requirement for contraception coverage in health plans, Reuters reports. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the administration’s position in a case that pre-dated the high court’s Hobby Lobby decision. The Supreme Court directed the appeals court to reconsider its decision in light of the June 2014 ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

The U.S. Supreme Court today made it easier for people to sue the federal government for negligence, the Daily Times reports. The justices, voting 5-4, ruled in two cases that the deadlines for filing such lawsuits can be extended if plaintiffs tried their best to comply or simply failed to learn about important information before a deadline. The paper suggests that the new authority could affect military veterans with claims of medical malpractice.