“Insurance Mandate May Be Health Bill’s Undoing”: Sheryl Gay Stolberg will have this news analysis Wednesday in The New York Times.

And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “C-SPAN seeks to air Supreme Court healthcare arguments.”

“King County judge named to state Supreme Court”: The Seattle Times has a news update that begins, “Gov. Christine Gregoire named King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez to the state Supreme Court on Tuesday, replacing retiring Justice Gerry Alexander.”

“Plea for TV of health care hearings”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Against very long odds, the C-SPAN network on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to allow live television coverage of the oral arguments that are to be held in March on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law. ”

C-SPAN has posted online at this link the letter that its Chairman and CEO sent today to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “C-SPAN: Put high court health care arguments on TV.”

“Court: Cell phones not OK to use at red light.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A driver who stops at a red light is ‘driving’ and is still prohibited from using a handheld cell phone, a state appeals court ruled Monday in upholding a $103 fine against a Richmond motorist.”

Bay City News reports that “Court Says Using Hand-Held Cellphone At Red Light Violates State Law.”

Kate Moser of The Recorder has an article headlined “Appeal Court: Texting at Red Lights a No-Go.”

And at the “California Appellate Report” blog, law professor Shaun Martin begins his post about the case by writing that “This is the most important opinion in the history of California appellate jurisprudence.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division Two, at this link.

“Medical Nuances Drove ‘No’ Vote in Mississippi”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains this article about the “personhood” initiative.

“Justices unlikely to have last word on health care”: The Associated Press has this report.

Second Circuit upholds $1.40 attorney’s fee award pursuant to Prison Litigation Reform Act: In January 2006, I had a post titled “So you think your hourly rate is low?” that began, “When a prisoner recovers $1 in damages on a federal civil rights claim, the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits the maximum available attorney’s fee award to $1.50, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [has] ruled ….”

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling that reached the same result. Indeed, the attorney’s fee that the Second Circuit upheld today is not even as generous as the law would have allowed, given that the appellate court has upheld the district court’s ten-cent reduction to produce an attorney’s fee award of just $1.40.

In February 2006, an installment of my law.com “On Appeal” column discussing the Tenth Circuit’s en banc ruling was headlined “Minimum Wage: The $1.50 Attorney Fee.”

“Whatever Court Rules, Major Changes in Health Care Likely to Last”: This front page article appears today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Health Reform and the Supreme Court.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court puts healthcare law in campaign spotlight; A ruling could come just as the presidential campaign shifts into full swing; ‘Probably no court case in modern times would have the impact this would,’ a strategist says.” James Oliphant reports that “Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case.” And law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an op-ed entitled “Will partisanship shape the healthcare ruling? The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate; But will the judges see the issue in terms of legal precedent or partisanship?”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has an article headlined “Obama-Roberts Legacies Shaped by Health Ruling.” And Margaret Talev and Julianna Goldman report that “Obama Defends Health-Care Law U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider.”

Jesse J. Holland and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press have an article headlined “Supreme Court: Pre-election health care showdown.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Court to hear election-year health care law challenge; Justices to consider if initiative’s mandate is constitutional.”

The News & Advance of Lynchburg, Virginia reports that “LU health care lawsuit not taken up by Supreme Court.”

The Palm Beach Post reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Florida challenge to health care law.”

The Washington Post reports that “Florida’s push for specific waiver in health-care law could have big implications.”

Wednesday’s edition of The Australian reports that “Barack Obama’s health deal off to court.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “The PBS NewsHour” contained a segment entitled “Health Reform Law to Face Constitutional Test in Supreme Court.”

The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “ObamaCare Goes to Court: A historic showdown on the constitutional limits of federal power.”

Online at Slate, Simon Lazarus and Dahlia Lithwick have a jurisprudence essay entitled “The Medicaid Ambush: The Supreme Court’s unexpected and astounding reasons for wanting to hear a challenge to Obamacare.”

Online at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a blog post titled “Power in the Court.”

Online at The Nation, George Zornick has an essay entitled “Will Clarence Thomas Recuse Himself From Obamacare Case?”

And online at Mother Jones, Stephanie Mencimer has an essay entitled “How Pot Could Save Obamacare.”

“Tribal Court holds case on campus”: Today’s edition of The Yale Daily News contains an article that begins, “In a rare appearance outside its reservation in New Mexico and Arizona, the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation came to Yale to meet with students and hear a case on campus Monday evening.”

“Palfrey Leaves HLS for Andover”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson.

“TV could boost Supreme Court’s ratings”: Former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter has this op-ed today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.