“SCOTUSblog: After a decade, an overnight sensation.” Staci D. Kramer has this lengthy post tonight at paidContent.

“High court agrees no indecency fine for CBS ‘wardrobe malfunction'”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t hear ‘wardrobe malfunction’ appeal.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Top Court Won’t Revive CBS Fine Over Super Bowl Exposure.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Janet Jackson ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’ Case Declined By Supreme Court, Erasing CBS Fine.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “‘Wardrobe malfunction’ case finally ends.”

“Conservatives See Silver Lining in Health Ruling”: In Saturday’s edition of The New York Times, James B. Stewart will have this new installment of his “Common Sense” column.

“It ain’t over — more legal challenges to health care law coming.” Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Gay marriage issue reaches Court”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Roberts Ruling On Obamacare Calls Into Question Definition Of Tax, Penalty”: Jon Ward of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Reuters Supreme Court correspondent Jim Vicini steps down”: JimRomenesko.com has this report.

Update: The Newspaper Guild of New York has issued a news release headlined “A day after shining at Supreme Court, Reuters reporter departs.”

Speaking of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: On the morning of Wednesday, July 11, 2012, The Heritage Foundation will host a program titled “Scholars & Scribes Review the Rulings: The Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 Term.”

Participants on the first hour’s panel will be Solicitor General Verrilli, law professor Richard A. Epstein, and Michael Carvin, with former Attorney General Edwin Meese III serving as moderator.

Participants on the second hour’s panel will be David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press, and me, with Todd Gaziano serving as moderator.

“Vindication for Maligned Lawyer in Justices’ Ruling”: John M. Broder will have this article Saturday in The New York Times.

“Will Supreme Court’s health care ruling imperil Clean Air Act?” Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.

“After the health care ruling, Roberts jokes, but declines to talk about the decision”: Del Quentin Wilber of The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “Making his first public appearance since writing the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision on health care, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Friday joked, but declined to discuss the landmark ruling during a 30-minute question and answer session. Appearing at a judicial conference outside Pittsburgh, Roberts answered questions from two lower court judges and an audience of lawyers.”

“High court for sale: Sotomayor magnets, anyone?” Andrew Longstreth and Drew Singer of Reuters have this report.

“Audible exhalation as health care ruling is read”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

“Chief Justice Roberts did the right thing — but it’s still a bad law.” Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has this post online at Slate.

“Roberts jokes about trip to ‘impregnable fortress'”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama”: Adam Liptak has this front page article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Justices Allow the Term ‘Tax’ to Embrace ‘Penalty’” and an editorial entitled “A Moderate Ruling With Risks Ahead.” In addition, columnist David Brooks has an op-ed entitled “Modesty and Audacity“; columnist Paul Krugman has an op-ed entitled “The Real Winners“; Neal K. Katyal has an op-ed entitled “A Pyrrhic Victory“; and law professor Richard A. Epstein has an op-ed entitled “A Confused Opinion.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health-care law.” And in commentary, columnist George F. Will has an essay entitled “Conservatives’ consolation prize“; columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an essay entitled “A victory for Obama — and for Roberts“; columnist Dana Milbank has an essay entitled “The umpire strikes back“; and columnist Charles Krauthammer has an essay entitled “Why Roberts did it.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has articles headlined “Supreme Court upholds Obama’s healthcare law; The penalty for lacking insurance is simply a tax, not an unconstitutional mandate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says in his majority opinion” and “Scorned after oral arguments on healthcare, Verrilli emerges a winner.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Vindication for ‘Obamacare’: Despite demonization from the right, the high court correctly upheld the healthcare reform law.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Louise Radnofsky report that “Court Backs Obama on Health Law; In a Surprise Ruling, Chief Justice Sides With Liberals to Uphold Insurance Mandate; Republicans to Press for Repeal.” And Ashby Jones and Brent Kendall report that “Roberts Straddles Ideological Divide.”

In USA Today, Richard Wolf, Brad Heath, and Chuck Raasch have an article headlined “How health care law survived, and what’s next.” In addition, Heath has an article headlined “Chief justice’s role takes ironic turn.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court upholds health care law, calls mandate’s fee a tax.”

The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health care overhaul” and “Roberts strikes balance with ‘tax’ interpretation.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Obama health-care law: Supreme Court upholds it in entirety; A 5-to-4 Supreme Court majority — including Chief Justice John Roberts — determined that the Obama health-care law was authorized under Congress’s power to raise and collect taxes.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has posts titled “Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax” and “A giant hole in the safety net?”

In coverage of yesterday’s Affordable Care Act ruling available online from Slate: Jeff Shesol has a jurisprudence essay entitled “John Roberts Is No Hero: Why our crush on the chief justice is silly — and undeserved.”

David L. Franklin has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Why Did Roberts Do It? To save the court.”

And Tom Scocca has an essay entitled “Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War: The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted the Order List at this link.

In FCC v. CBS Corp., No. 11-1240, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each issued a concurrence in the denial of certiorari.

And in early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court turns away media companies’ appeal.”

“John Roberts recasts his legacy with health care decision”: Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn have this report at Politico.com.

“Lynne Stewart 10-year prison term upheld by appeals court”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.

And in other coverage, The New York Times reports today that “10-Year Sentence for Lawyer in Terrorism Case Is Upheld.”

“Health-care ruling vindicates solicitor general Verrilli”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Health Ruling Vindicates Verrilli After Arguments Mocked.”

“A Justice in Chief”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.