“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.

“Video of Paul Clement and Laurence Tribe Debating Obamacare Now Online”: You can access the video at this link (via “FedSoc Blog“).

Reuters is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Supreme Court to hear in vitro fertilization benefits” and “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Indianapolis tax case.”

“Supreme Court Sets Historic Showdown For Health Law”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg and Julie Rovner appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Both Dems, GOP pleased: Supreme Court taking up Obama health-care law; The announcement from the US Supreme Court about considering the health-care law was greeted across the ideological spectrum as a positive development — but for different reasons.”

“Obama faces re-election hurdle as health reforms go before supreme court; Court expected to reach decision on whether healthcare reform bill is constitutional just five months before election day”: The Guardian (UK) has this news update.

“Court announcement raises recusal questions for Kagan, Thomas”: The Washington Times has this news update.

And online at The Washington Post, Charles Lane has an essay entitled “The time is not right for Supreme Court to review health-care law.”

Lyle Denniston is reporting: At “SCOTUSblog,” he has posts titled “The Court’s agenda on health care” and “The other granted cases.”

“Scenarios: What Supreme Court ruling could mean for healthcare.” Anna Yukhananov and Lisa Lambert of Reuters have this report.

And The Telegraph (UK) has a news update headlined “US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Barack Obama’s health care reform; The United States Supreme Court is to hear a challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform and deliver its ruling at the height of next year’s White House campaign.”

“Law Professor Takes Aim at Friend-of-Court Filings”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Obama Health Care Law Reaches Supreme Court, With Over Five Hours Of Oral Argument Planned”: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Supreme Court agrees to settle fight over Obama health-care law; The Obama health-care law hangs in the balance, as the Supreme Court opts to hear challenges to its constitutionality; But the case is also about the power of Congress and the role of Supreme Court precedent”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court will hear health care case.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Supreme Court Sets Broad Review of Health Care Law.”

And Politico.com has a report headlined “Five health reform fights SCOTUS won’t settle.”

“Court Declines Review of School Vaccine, Religious-Flier Cases”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“A decade on, U.S. terrorism tribunals are bogged down”: Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Health Law”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obama’s health-care overhaul.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court to review Obama healthcare law ahead of election.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court to hear dispute on health care law.”

And Michael Doyle and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court will consider health care law challenge in 2012.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted today’s Order List at this link. The Court granted review today in a total of five cases, three of which involve challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In early news coverage, Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court will hear health care case this term.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Obama’s Health-Care Overhaul Law Will Be Reviewed by U.S. Supreme Court.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court takes up challenge to health care reform law.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News reports that “Supreme Court Will Rule This Year on Health Reform Law.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care.”

“Major win for U.S. on detainees”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And this weekend at the “Lawfare” blog, Benjamin Wittes had posts titled “Thoughts on Latif #4 — A Fuller Analysis” and “Thoughts on Latif #5 — Of En Bancs and Cert Grants.”

My earlier coverage of the redacted ruling that the D.C. Circuit made public last week can be accessed here.

“The Urgent Need to Fill The Current D.C. Circuit Vacancies”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.

“License plates, not bullhorns”: Today’s edition of The Times Union of Albany, New York contains an editorial that begins, “The Children First Foundation has an adorable, crayon-drawn license plate and a worthy cause: encouraging people to adopt children. But it also has a loaded anti-abortion catchphrase — Choose Life — that may be fine for a bumper sticker but is inappropriate for a government-issued license plate.”

“The Drone Threat to Privacy: In a world in which nearly anyone can purchase a device capable of photographing locations behind walls, gates and fences, will anyone be able to keep a secret?” John Villasenor has this article online at Scientific American.

And in the current issue of Time magazine, Adam Cohen has an essay entitled “Big Brother Wants to Track Your Car: Can the Supreme Court protect us from GPS surveillance?”

“A buoyed healthcare law reaches Supreme Court; Justices are expected to announce as soon as Monday that they will hear a challenge to President Obama’s landmark legislation, which bears the surprising approval of prominent conservative judges”: David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Felons Finding It Easy to Get Gun Rights Reinstated”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Health Law Puts Focus on Limits of Federal Power”: Adam Liptak will have this article Monday in The New York Times.

And Michael Doyle and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court prepares to take on health care law challenges.”

“Who gets to judge political truth?” Today in The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed that begins, “The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a compound of political pandering and moral exhibitionism, was whooped through the Senate, a.k.a. the ‘world’s greatest deliberative body,’ by unanimous consent; the House, joining the stampede, passed it by a voice vote. So Xavier Alvarez now hopes the Supreme Court will save him from punishment for lying. And his is not the only case arising from government supervising speech that is demonstrably, or arguably, inaccurate.”

“The Supreme Court has a chance to keep Big Brother at bay”: Law professor David Cole has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

Also today in The Washington Post, law professor Jonathan Turley has an op-ed entitled “Supreme Court’s GPS case asks: How much privacy do we expect?”

And online at the Harvard Political Review, Alex McLeese has an essay entitled “The Court, Privacy, and GPS Tracking.”

“What does Supreme Court decision on Social Security mean for health-care act?” Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

And from Bloomberg News, law professor Noah Feldman has an op-ed entitled “Conservative Health-Care Split Offers Supreme Court a Path.”

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Unveiling secret corporate political money.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“Despite title, Supreme Court not always last word”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“Affirmation of Health Care Reform”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “A federal appeals court in the District of Columbia endorsed the constitutionality of health care reform this week in an opinion as notable for its authorship as for its legal reasoning.”

Online at The New Republic, Bruce Brown has an essay entitled “How Conservative Judges Just Provided the Most Authoritative Legal Defense of Obamacare.”

And Tom Curry of MSNBC.com has a blog post titled “The Supreme Court and health reform: A guide.”

“Split Definitive: For the first time in a century, the Supreme Court is divided solely by political party.” Lawrence Baum and Neal Devins have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Justice Stevens on His ‘Most Unpopular Opinion'”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.