WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court denied review in several cases on Monday morning, according to a list of orders released from the justices' June 18 conference. The Court also asked for the federal government's views in two other cases.

The Court denied review in RMS of Georgia v. EPA without comment. This case was a challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency rule governing the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons. The Court also denied review in Arkansas United v. Thurston without comment. That case involved a challenge to an Arkansas law that bars individuals other than election officials from helping more than six voters. Petitioners in Arkansas United v. Thurston had asked the court to decide whether private individuals could enforce Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act allows voters who are blind, disabled, or cannot read or write to receive assistance.

The Supreme Court denied review without comment in Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP, a dispute over the rights to the phrase "More Than an Athlete." The Court did not require Uninterrupted IP to file a response in the case. Game Plan is a Maryland charity, while Uninterrupted IP is a media company co-founded by LeBron James. Uninterrupted IP won in the lower court in that case.

The justices requested the federal government's views in Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association. This case is a challenge to the bar association's practice of reserving leadership positions for members of specific minority groups. Saadeh came to the Supreme Court in February. A state appeals court upheld the New Jersey State Bar Association's practice under the First Amendment. The lower court wrote, "Compelling the Association to alter or eliminate its program to ensure diversity in its leadership … would burden the expression of its views." Saadeh told the justices, "Illegal discrimination does not become a constitutional right when the discriminator discriminates in the name of 'diversity.'" The New Jersey State Bar Association argued that Saadeh does not have standing to sue. The bar association told the justices that its "leadership-selection process has changed." The bar association also stated, "Now, every at-large seat is open through multiple paths."

The Supreme Court also asked for the federal government's views in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. O'Day. This case challenges the constitutionality of an Oregon law that requires prescription drug makers to report information about some prescription drug prices to the state. The state of Oregon generally posts the reported prescription drug price information on a website. There is no deadline for the solicitor general to file briefs in response to the court's requests.

The justices will meet for another conference on Thursday, June 25, which is the final regularly scheduled conference before the summer recess. The Court did not act on several petitions for review that it had considered for the first time the previous week. These inactive petitions included three cases challenging voting restrictions in Arizona, including a requirement of proof of citizenship to vote for president or by mail. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down the Arizona voting restrictions. Other inactive petitions included a case about whether parents have a right to challenge laws in Washington State that allow runaway teens to receive mental health care and treatment at licensed shelters without parental consent.