“Juror is first to pass judgment on 2 courthouses; She inaugurated old, new buildings”: This article appears today in The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.

“Diversity Increases Among High Court Practitioners”: Tony Mauro has this article in this week’s issue of The National Law Journal.

“Citizens United’s Outrageous Offspring”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

Fifth Circuit reverses federal district court’s decision that had invalidated Texas barratry statute on First Amendment grounds: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“Judges sharply challenge healthcare law; Skeptical questions from three federal judges in Atlanta suggest they may be ready to declare unconstitutional all or part of the healthcare law promoted by the Obama administration and passed last year by Congress”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Appeals court weighs health insurance mandate.”

The St. Petersburg Times has a news update headlined “Legal fight continues over health care reform law.”

The Palm Beach Post has a news update headlined “Appeals judges focus on individual mandate, severability, Medicaid in health-care law hearing.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Health-Care Law Must Stand, U.S. Tells Third Appeals Court in Atlanta.”

“Court questions constitutionality of health care law”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “US appeals court hears health care law arguments.”

Update: C-SPAN Radio is scheduled to broadcast today’s Eleventh Circuit oral argument at 3:45 p.m. eastern time. You can listen to C-SPAN Radio live, online by clicking here.

“Two Ontario judges frontrunners for Supreme Court vacancies”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Kirk Makin has an article that begins, “A pair of senior Ontario judges are emerging as leading contenders in a contest to fill two vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada.”

“Va. federal judge rejects government request to reconsider on donations”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Judge Won’t Restore Charges Over Corporate Campaign Giving.”

“Affidavits: Conrad Black lorded over captive audience in prison.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

And Monday’s edition of The National Post contained an article headlined “Conrad Black treated other inmates ‘like servants,’” while on Tuesday that newspaper published an article headlined “Unflattering prisoner profile ‘lies’: Black.”

Judicial modesty: Today’s edition of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch contains an article headlined “New courthouse’s glass stairs draw concerns of ‘peeping’; Airy feature in new Common Pleas building raises concerns of modesty.”

“Mapp v. Ohio turns 50: If a moderate Texan could love the exclusionary rule, why can’t judicial conservatives?” Alexander Wohl has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Major new corporate case at Court; A new appeal challenges the Second Circuit Court’s deeply divided ruling that foreign corporations cannot be sued in U.S. courts, under a 1789 law, for war crimes or human rights abuses”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog,” which has placed the petition for writ of certiorari online at this link.

My earlier posts covering the case can be accessed here and here.

“Atlanta court becomes health care battleground”: Bill Rankin has this article today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Today’s edition of The St. Petersburg Times contains an article headlined “In fighting health care law, Florida rejects millions in federal aid.”

Earlier this week, Joan Biskupic of USA Today reported that “Appeals court to hear states’ case against health care law.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Health-care battle: A third US appeals court weighs law’s constitutionality; Lawyers representing 26 states square off Wednesday against the Obama administration; Both sides bring top legal talent to the appeal of a ruling by a federal judge in Florida who invalidated the entire health-care law.”

At ABCNews.com, Ariane de Vogue reports that “Obama Health Care Bill Next Up for Appeals Court Challenge.”

FOXNews.com reports that “States Objecting to Health Care Law to Get Day in Appeals Court.”

The Associated Press reports that “Health overhaul fight in pivotal Atlanta court.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Health-Care Law Must Stand, Obama Administration Tells Third Appeals Court.”

In yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Richard A. Epstein and Mario Loyola had an op-ed entitled “ObamaCare’s Next Constitutional Challenge: The Medicaid provision of the health law spells the death knell for competition among the states.”

And at the “aca litigation blog,” Brad Joondeph has a post titled “The Medicaid question.”

C-SPAN is apparently planning to post the oral argument audio online, so I will provide a link to the audio when it becomes available.

“State tells federal judges it has right plan to reduce prison overcrowding”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “State says taxes needed to reduce prison population.”

The Sacramento Bee has a news update headlined “Prison officials say crowding has eased but ask Legislature for help.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Brown moves to shift Calif. inmates to local jails.”

“Breaking News: Judge in Va. Contributions Case Reaffirms Opinion Striking Down Federal Campaign Contribution Limits Law.” Law professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Judge stands by campaign ruling — mostly; A federal judge, in a more modest ruling, still finds that the Supreme Court has undercut the constitutionality of the century-old ban on corporate donations directly to federal candidates.”

“Blogger is not protected under shield law, N.J Supreme Court rules”: The Newark Star-Ledger has this news update.

My earlier coverage of today’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling appears at this link.

“40 years ago, a ruling that still rings today”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this essay online at the First Amendment Center.

“Calif. to reveal plan to cut inmate population”: The Associated Press has this report.

“NJ court: No shield law for message boards posters.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don’t have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

The court’s opinion begins, “Millions of people with Internet access can disseminate
information today in ways that were previously unimaginable.”

And at the conclusion of its opinion, the court writes: “The Legislature is free to expand the [Shield Law’s] coverage as a matter of policy. In an era of ever-changing technology, with new and rapidly evolving ways of communicating, the Legislature may choose to reconsider who is a newsperson and add new criteria to the Shield Law. We are not foreclosing that discussion today; we are simply interpreting an existing and far-reaching statute. ”

“Hazleton immigration ordinance to get new review”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Allentown Morning Call reports today that “Review of Hazleton immigrant law ordered; Appeals court will reconsider city’s case in light of Supreme Court ruling on Arizona law.”

The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania contains articles headlined “Court tosses ruling against Hazleton immigration law” and “Hazleton mayor hopes decision will spur donations to legal fund.”

And The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania reports that “Hazleton’s immigration case revived; U.S. Supreme Court directs appellate court to reconsider decision in case.”

“Supreme Court Rules for Drug Firm in a Patent Dispute”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

And in today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court limits patent rights of university research.”

“Supreme Court ruling on California immigrant tuition rates could affect other states’ policies; Court’s decision could reinforce other states’ proposals to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students; It may also boost California’s Dream Act, which would give those students access to financial aid”: Larry Gordon and David Savage have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “U.S. high court OKs in-state tuition for illegals.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Supreme Court refuses to review California illegal immigrant tuition law.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “In-state tuition for illegal immigrants survives, Supreme Court declines case; The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a challenge to a California law that allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.”

And at the “School Law Blog” of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Justices Decline Case on Tuition Benefit for Immigrants.”

“Senate approves Donald Verrilli as solicitor general”: Joan Biskupic of USA Today has this report.

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Senate Confirms Former RIAA Lawyer for Solicitor General.”

“Courts Upend Budgets as States Look for Savings”: The New York Times contains this article today.

“Wyoming Supreme Court reverses same-sex divorce ruling”: This article appears today in The Casper Star-Tribune.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Wyoming at this link.

“Disputed Election Fueled Prof. Hasen’s Specialty”: At the web site of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, Rex Bossert has this profile of law professor Rick Hasen, author of the “Election Law Blog.”

“Pro-choice forces seek to prevent referendum; Mississippi slated to vote on ‘personhood'”: The Washington Times has a news update that begins, “Stepping into a growing national debate over abortion rights, the Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments Monday about whether to allow a ‘personhood’ amendment to remain on the ballot this fall.”

“Supreme Court Declines to Take GE Challenge of Superfund”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report (via The New York Times).

And Reuters reports that “U.S. court rejects GE challenge to EPA cleanup orders.”

“Did jail strip search go too far? Supreme Court lets ruling stand; A federal appeals court ruled that a woman’s intimate search of a male inmate — which was filmed and watched by dozens — was unreasonable; The Supreme Court declined to take the case.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court upholds liability judgment in cross-gender inmate search.”

“Senate confirms Obama lawyer as solicitor general”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Senate on Monday confirmed White House lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. to succeed Justice Elena Kagan as U.S. solicitor general.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Verrilli gets final OK as SG.”

“Gov. Jan Brewer names D.C. attorney as lead counsel in SB 1070 petition”: The Arizona Republic has a news update that begins, “Gov. Jan Brewer has appointed Washington D.C.-based attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement as lead counsel for the state’s petition against the federal government in the Senate Bill 1070 case.”

And The Associated Press reports that “AZ gov picks prominent lawyer for immigration case.”

“Court tosses ruling against Hazleton’s illegal immigration law”: The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania has this news update.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court demands review of ruling in anti-illegal immigration case; A federal appeals court ruled that the anti-illegal immigration laws of Hazleton, Pa., clashed with federal authority; But the Supreme Court is telling the appeals court to reconsider the case.”

“High court rejects Stanford’s bid to revive lawsuit with Roche over AIDS treatment patents”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Roche Wins as U.S. High Court Limits Research Universities’ Patent Rights.”

And Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Roche In Patent Battle With Stanford.”

“Supreme Court considers collective bargaining case”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Wis. DOJ argues authority exceeded in union case.”

Access online today’s Order List and rulings in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court granted review in two cases.

The Court today also issued rulings in four argued cases.

1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Fox v. Vice, No. 10-114. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in McNeill v. United States, No. 10-5258. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court in Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. 09-1159. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

4. And the Chief Justice delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., No. 09-1403. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court says university, company co-owners of patent“; “Court says Halliburton lawsuit can go forward“; “Court: Career criminal won’t get less prison time“; “Court says victim doesn’t have to pay lawyer fees“; “Court orders new look at Pa. city immigration regs“; “High court denies former Sen. Burris appeal“; and “Supreme Court turns down Snipes’ appeal.”