“Slow pace of justice: State will feel effects of a clogged court system without new appellate court.” The Las Vegas Sun contains this editorial today.

“Health Suits Stir Concerns on Court Partisanship”: This article appears today in The New York TImes, along with an article headlined “On Health Law, Check Back in a Generation.”

Today’s edition of The St. Petersburg Times reports that “McCollum’s challenge of Obama’s health care plan is central to national debate.”

Newsweek has an article headlined “Will The Supreme Court Overturn Health-Care Reform? Why this week’s federal district court ruling is only the start of the debate over whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Administration, States Take Defense of Health-Care Fight to Florida.”

The Associated Press reports that “Courts may not get last word in health care fight.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Health Care Rulings Reignite Judicial Bias Debate.”

“The Politicization of a Respected Court”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey chose not to renominate Justice John Wallace Jr. to the State Supreme Court in May, it was a case of political overreach. The situation is now a national disgrace, thanks to the governor, the State Senate president, Stephen Sweeney, and Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto.”

And in today’s edition of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, Paul Mulshine has an op-ed entitled “The governor should be running for precedent.”

“Legal challenge to judicial retention vote is questioned”: Grant Schulte and Jennifer Jacobs have this article today in The Des Moines Register.

“Okla. set to execute inmate with substitute drug”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Health Care’s Future Is ‘Up for Grabs’ as U.S. Supreme Court Clash Looms”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Health-care reform: Battleground shifts to Florida courtroom; The legal battle over health-care reform is destined for the Supreme Court, analysts say; On Thursday a US district judge in Florida hears arguments in a case brought by 20 states.”

“Why Companies Don’t Deserve Personal Privacy Rights”: Adam Cohen has this essay online at the web site of Time magazine.

“Copyright confusion: A suit pitting Omega against Costco has resulted in an unsatisfactory ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit regarding resale rights.” This editorial appears Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justice Scalia Plans to Deliver Speech Before Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus”: Greg Stohr and Lisa Lerer of Bloomberg News have this report.

“Persistence needed by Iowa Supreme Court applicants”: This article appears today in The Des Moines Register.

“A pawn in a legal chess match: Shirley Ree Smith spent 10 years behind bars for the death of her grandson before her conviction was overturned; Now she waits on skid row as the courts sort out whether a jury’s verdict–even if wrong–must prevail.” Carol J. Williams will have this article Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.

“That Lady With the Scales Poses for Her Portraits”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

“Judges’ ruling could protect e-mails”: The Cincinnati Enquirer has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Federal court in Ohio upholds e-mail privacy.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Court Rebuffs Obama on Warrantless Cell-Site Tracking”: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post that begins, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected the Obama administration’s contention that the government is never required to get a court warrant to obtain cell-site information that mobile-phone carriers retain on their customers.”

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order denying the federal government’s petition for rehearing en banc.

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s ruling in this case appears here and here.

“Court revives suit over Nazi salute in Santa Cruz”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

“When Robert Norse gave the Santa Cruz City Council a silent Nazi salute, he was ejected and arrested.” So begins today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Norse v. Santa Cruz.

My earlier coverage of Ninth Circuit-related developments in this case can be accessed here and here.

“Court Order on Greenhouse Gas Rules Provides Comfort to Industry Challengers”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article that begins, “When a federal appeals court announced Friday that it wouldn’t stay U.S. EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, it was not the completely decisive win for the Obama administration it may have seemed.”

“Cuccinelli basking in court victory”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports today that “Justice Department to appeal health ruling.”

The New York Times contains articles headlined “Ruling Has Some Mulling the Necessity of Mandating Insurance” and “Opposition to Health Law Is Steeped in Tradition.”

And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “The individual mandate: It’s constitutional; The legal case against it almost certainly will make its way to the Supreme Court before the individual mandate is due to take effect in 2014; But considered in its proper context, it doesn’t violate the Constitution.”

“Seeking a path to restore order in the N.J. Supreme Court”: Law professor Edward A. Hartnett has this op-ed today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

The op-ed begins, “Several years ago — before Chris Christie was elected governor, before Stuart Rabner was named chief justice, before Roberto Rivera-Soto joined the Supreme Court of New Jersey — I wrote an article in the Seton Hall Law Review arguing that the New Jersey Constitution permits the chief justice to temporarily assign a Superior Court judge to the state Supreme Court only when the court would otherwise lack a quorum.”

“U.S. to Appeal Health Ruling; Move Advances Constitutional Struggle Likely to Reach Supreme Court by 2012”: Jess Bravin will have this article Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Time for Justice Rivera-Soto to resign”: Tom Moran has this op-ed today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

And at The Star-Ledger’s web site, Paul Mulshine has a blog post titled “In this schoolyard fight, Christie could have fun during recess” that begins, “Ed Hartnett never dreamed a mere law review article could lead to a controversy unprecedented in the history of the judiciary.”

“Advise and Obstruct”: Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an editorial that begins, “The Senate’s power to advise and consent on federal judicial nominations was intended as a check against sorely deficient presidential choices.”

“Justices review whether spitting deserves harsh prison term; Nye County man sentenced after confronting ex-girlfriend”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

David Kravets is reporting: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, he has posts titled “Warrant Needed to Get Your E-Mail, Appeals Court Says” and “Court Upholds Ban on World of Warcraft Bot.”

“Unplugged: When do Supreme Court justices need to just sit down and be quiet?” Dahlia Lithwick and law professor Sonja West have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Court rejects Okla. execution protocol challenge”: The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.

And in other coverage, The Tulsa World has a news update headlined “Court approves use of execution drug.”

“Senate is Still Working on Judicial Nominees”: David Ingram has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“World of Warcraft,” on appeal: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this ruling today.

She is a she: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued its ruling in a case captioned She v. Holder.

She happens to be female, and thus the opinion is replete with sentences such as, “She first argues that the BIA and IJ improperly concluded that she had firmly resettled in Taiwan because she fraudulently obtained her Taiwanese passport and household registration.”

Email privacy, on appeal: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued a very lengthy decision on the latest round of appeals in the case captioned United States v. Warshak.

The opinion of the court, written by Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs, begins, “Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc., was an incredibly profitable company that served as the distributor of Enzyte, an herbal supplement purported to enhance male sexual performance.”

In June 2009, Information Week previewed this latest set of appeals in an article headlined “U.S. Court Weighs E-mail Privacy, Again; At issue: whether e-mail messages deserve the same privacy protection as telephone calls.”

Update: At “The Volokh Conspiracy.” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Sixth Circuit Rules that E-Mail Protected by the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement.”

“Judge Voids Key Element of Obama Health Care Law”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with articles headlined “Years of Wrangling Lie Ahead for Health Care Law“; “Just One Ruling, But an Outsize One“: and “Law Will Proceed, Administration Says.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The Latest Health Care Decision.”

Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Judge tosses part of health-care law” and “Fate of law probably up to high court.” In addition, Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen Sebelius have an op-ed entitled “Health reform will survive its legal fight.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Noam N. Levey and David G. Savage report that “Key healthcare provision voided by federal judge; A requirement that Americans buy insurance — the central provision of Obama’s signature domestic achievement — is unconstitutional, the ruling says.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judges Divided on Health-Care Law.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Court Strikes at Health Law; Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle.”

In USA Today, Richard Wolf and Joan Biskupic report that “Health law loses in court challenge.”

Margaret Talev and Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Virginia federal judge rules health care law unconstitutional.”

The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Health care law: why federal judge struck key provision down; Health care reform includes an individual mandate, requiring everyone purchase health insurance; A federal judge ruled Monday that the law is unconstitutional, but two other judges have issued decisions upholding the law” and “Health care ruling: Are Obama’s reforms in trouble? A federal judge rules that the central element of Obama’s health care law violates the Constitution; Republicans are touting the ruling as a victory, but it might not be long-term.”

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Judge deals blow to health-care law.”

The Associated Press reports that “Long legal fight ahead for health law.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Dream a Little Dream: Why the Cuccinelli health care win in Virginia matters more than you think.”

“U.S. Supreme Court will not hear Manhattanville eminent domain case”: This article appears today in The Columbia Spectator.

“Judge won’t block Alaska abortion notification law”: The Associated Press has this report.

“The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage: And why it fails.” Law professor Kenji Yoshino has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“10 Years After Bush Vs. Gore, What’s Changed?” This audio segment featuring Jeffrey Toobin appeared on the most recent broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday.”