“Health Law Mandate Is Rejected by Court”: Michael Cooper will have this article Saturday in The New York Times.

In Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post, N.C. Aizenman and Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Appeals court strikes down health-care law’s insurance mandate.” Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an editorial entitled “Health care and the Constitution.”

In Saturday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey will have an article headlined “Federal appeals court strikes down insurance mandate; The three-judge panel in Atlanta rules 2 to 1 that Congress does not have the power to require Americans to buy health insurance as required in President Obama’s healthcare law.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Health-care reform law set back, setting stage for Supreme Court showdown; A federal appeals court rejects the individual mandate, the crux of Obama’s health-care reform; With another appeals court having already upheld the law, a Supreme Court showdown is far more likely.”

The idea of hacking into a university’s computer system to change bad grades to As apparently doesn’t have such a pleasant ending in reality: The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court upholds sentence in Fla. hacking conviction” reporting on a legnthy ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

According to The AP’s article, “Prosecutors say [the defendant] and two others in 2007 changed the grades of about 90 FAMU students, including raising 114 F’s to A’s.”

“11th Circuit Quotes Wilde (The Other One)!” The blog “South Florida Lawyers” has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the ruling is the dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Ed Carnes (whose Wikipedia entry contains a “How Appealing” cite) lamenting the temptation “for a district court judge to grant, and for appellate judges to affirm, summary judgment even when there is conflicting evidence on a material issue.”

“Court upholds conviction in Enron-related case”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today in the case captioned United States v. James Brown.

“Health Care Challenge Doesn’t Make the Cut”: Courthouse News Service has a report that begins, “Former California legislator Steve Baldwin and a right-wing legal group lack standing to challenge health care reform, the 9th Circuit ruled Friday, the same day that the 11th Circuit said the law was unconstitutional.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Appeals court finds healthcare mandate unconstitutional”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Appeals court says key parts of health-care reform unconstitutional.”

Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports that “Health-Law Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional.”

The Associated Press reports that “White House criticizes court’s health care ruling.”

Reuters has a report headlined “Analysis: Healthcare ruling and what it means.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Health insurance mandate struck down.”

“Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Health-Care Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional.”

And Reuters reports that “Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“In my experience, it is rare for three appellate judges to disagree with each other so thoroughly, but in this hard case it may be just as well. With only a narrow holding between us, we have at least avoided making bad law.” So concludes the separate opinion of Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown in a case in which all three judges on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote separately.

Defying the odds on rehearing en banc in the Fifth Circuit: It is, no doubt, more difficult to obtain rehearing en banc of a three-judge federal appellate panel’s ruling when the ruling is unanimous. Nevertheless, a unanimous three-judge panel’s ruling did not stop the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from granting rehearing en banc in a case captioned Reed v. City of Arlington in February of this year.

Yesterday, in perhaps an even more unlikely development, the Fifth Circuit issued its en banc ruling in the case, and by a vote of 13-to-3 the en banc court disagreed with the original three-judge panel’s ruling. In fact, the only three dissenters were the three judges assigned to the original panel that decided the case.

“Mattel Files to Appeal Judge’s Award to MGA Entertainment in Bratz Case”: Bloomberg News has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Mattel to appeal $309M judgment in Bratz doll case.”

“Evans, 71, served on federal appeals court”: This obituary appears today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.