“A victory, basically, for Combs.” A reflection on the trial of Sean Combs, in which the rapper was acquitted of the most serious charges against him. And, then, Jessica Winter on the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s latest Planned Parenthood decision. Plus:

• Hilton Als on love, loss, and New York
• Karan Mahajan kicks off this summer’s Flash Fiction series
• New Yorker staffers recommend literary beach reads

Sean Combs mouthed “thank you” to the jurors, his hands clasped in prayer. The intricacies of their deliberations will be revealed later on, in the requisite television interviews, but, as of Wednesday morning, what mattered was that Combs had been acquitted of the racketeering and sex-trafficking charges that would have put him away for life. The diminishment in reputation, the status as pariah or laughingstock, the looming sentencing for the lesser charges (two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, amazingly, his first conviction)—he would work his troubles into a narrative of redemption. As one of Combs’s associates said in a Profile of the mogul that ran in this magazine more than two decades ago: “Puffy will always come back. He’s like nature.”

On the second day of jury selection in the case of U.S. v. Sean Combs, Arun Subramanian, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York, called for a closed-door meeting with a defense attorney involved in the case. Subramanian, who is in his forties, and appointed to the court by Joe Biden, exudes a kind of good-natured adaptability; he is a disciplinarian, but a reasonable one. And yet his patience had already been tested by the sixty-seven-year-old Mark Geragos, defense attorney to the stars, who was serving as an unofficial adviser to Combs’s legal team.

“This is ridiculous,” Subramanian told Geragos. “I think referring to the prosecution in this case as a six-pack of white women is outrageous.”

Hilton Als on how leaving Brooklyn for a new life as a college student in Manhattan was in itself an act of becoming. Read the story »

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision that came down last week, allowed South Carolina to block the state’s Medicaid funds from being used for Planned Parenthood’s services, opening the door for other states to do the same.

Q: How bad is it?

Jessica Winter, staff writer covering family: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is not epochal, Dobbs-level bad in terms of its impact on reproductive rights. But the cruel sophistry of the majority opinion and its potential adverse effects on low-income patients should be recognized. Federal law specifies that Medicaid recipients can choose their own health-care providers, but this decision will block these patients from using Planned Parenthood clinics to access contraception, S.T.I. screenings, and gender-affirming care—because, as Henry McMaster, South Carolina’s Republican governor, stated, “Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers.” In allowing South Carolina’s rule to stand, the Court effectively allows the anti-abortion sentiments of conservative lawmakers—and of the Justices who share these views—to override long-established patient rights.

Read: From an essay collection about Beethoven to “Mating,” by Norman Rush, New Yorker staffers share the books they like to read at the beach.Watch: “Back to the Future” was released in American theatres on this day in 1985. Sarah Larson argues that since then we’ve learned a lot from Doc and Marty McFly.Listen: Nowhere to go for tomorrow’s holiday? As the Lovin’ Spoonful can attest, there’s much to be said for summer in the city.

P.S. Travelling this weekend? Agnes Callard would advise against it. “Travel turns us into the worst version of ourselves,” she writes, “while convincing us that we’re at our best.” 🧳

Hannah Jocelyn and Erin Neil contributed to today’s edition.