Following Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling last week tossing out as unconstitutional the previous anti-demonstration rules at the U.S. Supreme Court, court officials clarified and revised regulations to the 60-year old law. "The term demonstration includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers," says the revised Regulation 7, which was effective last Thursday. "The term does not include casual use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers." WCYB has the story.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed the growing number of women judges in courts across the country during a panel discussion Tuesday on women and the District of Columbia’s federal courts, the Blog of the Legal Times reports. Ginsburg stated that her fellow Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor made her "tremendously optimistic" about the future. "We are no longer one-at-a-time curiosities," she said, adding that having multiple women on the Supreme Court was "exhilarating" and offered "the right picture for the children who troop in and out."

Although the Supreme Court did not issue opinions on hot button topics such as same sex marriage, affirmative action or Voting Rights Act cases, SCOTUSblog reports that the court did issue rulings in three other argued cases. The decision in Descamps v. United States will make it more difficult for the federal government to use the details of a prior conviction to strengthen criminal sentences. In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the court ruled that retailers would need to work through arbitration individually, rather than through class action, to resolve claims with American Express. In the final opinion of the day, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society, the court held that the government could not require aid organizations to explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking to receive federal funding for HIV/AIDS programs overseas.

There are still 14 still cases awaiting Supreme Court action, and Scotusblog reports that it expects the release of several opinions tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Eastern time. It will begin live blogging at 9 a.m. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, is urging Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. to allow live broadcast of the court’s opinion announcements in blockbuster cases, the Blog of the Legal Times reports, “It is not unreasonable for the American people to have an opportunity to hear firsthand the arguments and opinions that will shape their society for years to come," Durbin wrote to Roberts in a letter released Tuesday.

The court today also agreed to decide four cases in its next term, SCOTUSBlog reports. These cases involve questions of whether federal housing law requires proof of intentional discrimination; the legality of a $1.24 million defamation judgment against a Wisconsin airline that reported a pilot was potentially dangerous; an attorneys fees issue in a district court case; and whether a bankruptcy trustee may surcharge a debtor’s constitutionally protected homestead property. Bloomberg and the AP have stories on these issues.

The high court on Monday ruled that juries, not judges, have the final say on facts that can trigger mandatory minimum sentences in criminal trials, WRCB-TV reports. The court overturned the sentencing of a Richmond man who was convicted of robbery and firearm possession. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury said his accomplice did not brandish a weapon but the judge found that he did. The judge’s finding raised the minimum sentence from five to seven years. Lawyers for the defendant argued that the decision should have been left to the jury. The court agreed and sent the case back for resentencing.

Other actions from the court today included rulings in favor of generic drug availability, allowing police to use suspects' silence against them at trial if they do not claim their Fifth Amendment right, and prohibiting lawyers from using state drivers' license records to recruit new clients. SCOTUSBlog has more on these decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down Arizona's requirement that would-be voters submit proof of citizenship, the ABA Journal reports. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, found that the law conflicted with the federal "motor voter" law, which allows individuals to register to vote without supplying proof of citizenship. The court also was unconvinced that the federal voter registration form needs to be changed to include additional information, which the state said it needed to determine a voter’s eligibility. But Scalia said the state could petition the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to alter the form and then appeal any decision not to make changes.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented from the decision arguing that it interprets “an ambiguous federal statute in a way that brushes aside the constitutional authority of the states" since "under the Constitution, the states, not Congress, have the authority to establish the qualifications of voters in elections for members of Congress." Civil liberties groups such as the ACLU applauded the ruling saying it invalidated a burdensome requirement that restricted citizens' ability to register to vote." Writing at SCOTUSblog, however, one law professor warned the ruling should not be read too broadly as the case “involved a question of statutory construction, not a constitutional challenge."

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled today that “naturally occurring” DNA segments cannot be patented, the Blog of the Legal Times reports. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which is considered by some a victory for civil liberties and consumer groups that argued corporations should not be able to lock up the uses of new DNA that could benefit patients if widely available. The Myriad patents at issue in the case were for BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene segments which, when mutated, can increase the risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad developed diagnostic tests from the segments that could reveal cancer risk in women.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down the 64-year-old law that prohibits demonstrations and displays on the grounds of the U.S Supreme Court, the National Law Journal reports. “The absolute prohibition on expressive activity in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment,” Howell wrote in the 68-page ruling issued in the case Hodge v. Talkin. If the government appeals the decision, Tuesday's ruling could set the stage for the Supreme Court's first review of the no-protest law in 30 years.

Following today's decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, 23 cases from the October 2012 term remain to be decided. The court is expected to release the rest of its rulings between Thursday and the end of the month, when it traditionally breaks for a summer recess. Read about the pending cases on SCOTUSblog.com.