This morning at ten o’clock the Justices will take the bench for what we expect to be the last time before their summer recess. They have not yet ruled in three cases, which are summarized below the jump. 
 
 Voisine v. United States (argued February 29, 2016). Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, the other petitioner in this case, both pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assaults on their respective domestic partners. Several years later, each man was charged with violating a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition by individuals who have previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Voisine and Armstrong contend their state convictions do not automatically qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence because the state-law provisions can be violated by conduct that is merely reckless, rather than intentional. 
 
 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (argued March 2, 2016). This is a challenge to the constitutionality of two provisions of a Texas law regulating abortion in that state. One provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have privileges to admit patients to a local hospital; the other requires abortion clinics to have facilities that are comparable to outpatient surgical centers. Texas contends that these new laws are constitutional because they were intended to protect women’s health, while the challengers argue that the law was actually intended to close most clinics and therefore limit women’s access to abortions. 
 
 McDonnell v. United States (argued April 27, 2016). Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell is challenging his convictions for violating federal laws that make it a felony to agree to take “official action” in exchange for money, campaign contributions, or anything else of value. He argues that merely referring someone to an independent decision maker – in his case, in an effort to help promote a Virginia businessman’s nutritional supplement – doesn’t constitute the kind of “official action” that the statute bars. 
 
 Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, The final three cases, in Plain English, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 27, 2016, 6:02 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/the-final-three-cases-in-plain-english/ 

 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down Texas' widely replicated regulation of abortion clinics in the court's biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century. 
 
 The justices voted 5-3 Monday in favor of Texas clinics that protested the regulations as a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state. 
 
 Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion. 
 
 Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
– In what the AP is calling the Supreme Court's "biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century," a 5-3 vote Monday has deemed Texas' restrictions on abortion clinics unconstitutional, refuting the state's assertion that these regulations were medically necessary to protect women's health. These rules—which mandated that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at hospitals close by, as well as required abortion clinics to meet rigorous, hospital-like standards—placed an "'undue burden' on a woman's right to decide to have an abortion," reads the court ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The clinics had argued that these regulations were nothing more than an attempt to close most clinics and limit women's abortion access. Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented. (Thousands of Texas women say they've tried to induce their own abortions.)