“Health care law’s defenders look to George Washington”: Richard Wolf will have this article Wednesday in USA Today.

“Justices Back Mayo Clinic Argument on Patents”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an article headlined “Top Court’s Patent Rejection Alarms the Biotech Industry.”

Wednesday’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune will contain an article headlined “Court backs Mayo in patent case; Justices ruled Prometheus Labs had tried to patent laws of nature.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Freeing doctors to practice.”

“Justices Limit Suits Filed Over Family Leave Act Violations”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rules that states can’t be sued for denying workers medical leave.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Court votes to shield state agencies that deny unpaid sick leave for new parents.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Does Supreme Court decision on sick leave hint at health-care law ruling? The sick leave provision and health-care law rely on different sections of the Constitution, but Supreme Court-watchers noted with interest that the justices found Congress had overstepped its authority.”

“Supreme Court Revisits Issue of Harsh Sentences for Juveniles”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times. Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an editorial entitled “Cruel and Unusual Punishment for 14-Year-Olds.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court debates whether young murderers should get life without parole.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court troubled by mandatory life terms for child criminals; The justices seem closely split and uncertain over whether to set new constitutional limits on prison terms for murderers younger than 14.”

Mary Orndorff of The Birmingham News has an update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Alabama case about life without parole for juvenile offenders.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Do 14-year-old killers deserve life without parole? Supreme Court hears cases; Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is seen as the potential swing vote in two cases questioning whether life without parole for 14-year-old killers is cruel and unusual punishment.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices mull whether life without parole appropriate for underage killers.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Takes On Life Without Parole For Teens Convicted Of Murder.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “The Supreme Court’s Guide to Good Parenting: When it comes to punishing children, the Supreme Court doesn’t have a clue.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Debates Life Without Parole For Juveniles.”

“Why California’s chief justice is taking on the Legislature: As head of the California court system, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is in a power struggle with lawmakers; It points to a delicate balance for judges.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Court wary of life without parole for juveniles”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs if teen murderers must get chance of parole.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Compromise on youth sentences?”

Welcome back, Cotterman: Late yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc in United States v. Cotterman.

The majority opinion that a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued in the case on March 30, 2011 — nearly one year ago — begins, “Today we examine a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit: whether the search of a laptop computer that begins at the border and ends two days later in a Government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away can still fall within the border search doctrine.” My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“Court questions life without parole for juveniles”: The Associated Press has this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted the transcripts of today’s oral argument in Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646, at this link and in Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, at this link.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News is reporting: He has articles headlined “States Shielded From Medical-Leave Suits by U.S. High Court” and “Diagnostic Medical-Test Patents Limited by U.S. High Court.”

Reuters is reporting: James Vicini reports that “Supreme Court rejects state damages in medical leave case.”

And Diane Bartz and James Vicini report that “Supreme court rules against Nestle unit on patent.”

“Judicial Confirmations: What Thurmond Rule?” The Brookings Institution has posted online this paper written by Russell Wheeler.

“O’Connor visit called ‘wonderful event for Greenville and the Upstate’; Retired Supreme Court justice to preside over several 4th Circuit Court of Appeals’ cases”: This article appears today in The Greenville (S.C.) News.

You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

“Solution to Alameda County fair gun show ban?” Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

You can access the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before an eleven-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit via this link.

“Publicity Push as Health Law’s Court Date Nears”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

USA Today reports today that “Health care debate ramps up ahead of Supreme Court arguments.”

The Associated Press reports that “High court has options on health care law.”

Bloomberg News has reports headlined “Health-Care Victory Seen as Possible Setback for Obama” and “Insurers at Risk in Challenge to Health Care Law’s Medicaid Plan.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “What to Expect: Supreme Court to Hear Health Care Law Challenge.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Health Care Case Reaches Supreme Court: The Constitutional Challenge.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: Health care, Part I — The power to decide?”

Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “How Do Racial Attitudes Affect Opinions About The Health Care Overhaul?” And yesterday’s broadcast contained an audio segment entitled “Florida Challenges Medicaid Spending ‘By Force.’”

Meanwhile, in commentary, The Washington Times contains an op-ed by U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) entitled “Kagan and Obamacare — still no answers; Stonewalling over justice’s obligation to recuse continues.”

And The Wall Street Journal contains an op-ed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Vernon L. Smith entitled “ObamaCare’s Flawed Economic Foundations: The insurance mandate has almost nothing to do with remedying costs imposed on the system by those without coverage.”

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued four rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., No. 10-1399. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. Justice Anthony M Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. Justice Kennedy also announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., No. 10-1016. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined in full and Justices Elena Kagan and Sotomayor joined except for a footnote. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court says state can’t be sued over sick leave” and “Court throws out Prometheus patent.”

“Supreme Court Examines Roles of Jury and Judge in Setting Fines”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

And Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “Justices divided over mercury storage case.”

You can access the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Southern Union Co. v. United States, No. 11-94, at this link.

“Supreme Court to weigh life term for juveniles convicted of murder”: USA Today has this report.

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Do Juvenile Killers Deserve Life Behind Bars?”

“Supreme Court denies campus groups’ appeal”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Supreme Court should remain free of TV cameras”: Charles Lane has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Injustice in a Sentencing Law”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “The Armed Career Criminal Act has long been a source of confusion for federal judges who are required to apply it in criminal cases.”