“Obamacare Supreme Court Case Leaves Room for Workarounds”: Bloomberg News has this report.

The Hill reports that “Court challenge stirs ObamaCare angst.”

And today at National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog, law professor John Yoo has a post titled “Four Reasons the Supreme Court Is Likely to Rule against the Obama Administration in Burwell.”

“Obama unlikely to alter Supreme Court ideology with Republican Senate”: David G. Savage and Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times have an article that begins, “The window for President Obama to add another liberal justice to the Supreme Court probably closed last week when Republicans took control of the Senate.”

“What’s next for gay marriage after court ruling?” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Health Law Challenge”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial titled “Health Care Reform Imperiled.”

“U.S. judge affirms conservative voice with same-sex marriage vote”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

At Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Sutton’s Last Stand: Judge In Same-Sex Marriage Case Declines To Overrule Democracy.”

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article headlined “No guarantee Supreme Court intervenes in gay marriage cases” and a blog post titled “Marriage ruling’s author a states’-rights advocate.”

“Pregnant, and No Civil Rights”: Lynn M. Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin have this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Always enjoy it when Second Circuit practitioners apply that court’s super-huge docket number requirement to a brief filed in the Third Circuit: Here’s one recent example (via Mike Scarcella).

On the agenda: On Monday evening, I’ll be on TV, recording for broadcast an episode of American Law Journal about the recent issues (including an early retirement) plaguing the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and, more generally, about the need for and ability of judges serving on appellate courts, including courts of last resort, to peacefully coexist. When the episode becomes available on YouTube, I will link to it.

And from Thursday through Sunday, I (and thus the entire “How Appealing” blogging operation) will be attending the Appellate Judges Education Institute summit in Dallas. As the program reflects, the event promises to be chock-full of notable appellate practitioners and judges.

“Judge officially ends W.Va.’s same-sex marriage ban”: The Gazette-Mail of Charleston, West Virginia has an article that begins, “A federal judge on Friday declared West Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, weeks after state officials began issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at this link.

The decision, written by Chief Judge Robert C. Chambers, is noteworthy among other reasons because it contains perhaps the first discussion by another court of the Sixth Circuit’s same-sex marriage ruling issued the day before.

Chief Judge Chambers concludes footnote five of his opinion as follows:

Th[e Sixth Circuit’s] approach, however, fails to recognize the role of courts in the democratic process. It is the duty of the judiciary to examine government action through the lens of the Constitution’s protection of individual freedom. Courts cannot avoid or deny this duty just because it arises during the contentious public debate that often accompanies the evolution of policy making throughout the states. Judges may not simultaneously find a right violated yet defer to an uncertain future remedy voluntarily undertaken by the violators.

You can access footnote five of the opinion directly via this link (scroll down to bottom of page).

Access online the audio of this past week’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: Via this link.