“A Health Law at Risk Gives Insurers Pause”: The New York Times contains this front page article today.

And business columnist James B. Stewart has an essay entitled “Broccoli Mandates and the Commerce Clause.”

“Fighting a Drawn-Out Battle Against Solitary Confinement”: This front page article appears today in The New York Times.

“A Court of Radicals: If the justices strike down Obamacare, it may have grave political implications for the court itself.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court affirms ruling on Open Beaches Act”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this post at that newspaper’s “Austin Legal” blog.

The Galveston County Daily News has an update headlined “Court: Public beach easement does not roll.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Texas Supreme Court limits Open Beaches Act.”

Today’s ruling on reargument of the Supreme Court of Texas, on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and three dissenting opinions (here, here, and here).

“Supreme Court takes up healthcare in secrecy”: James Vicini and Joan Biskupic of Reuters have this report.

“Lacking GPS Data, Prosecutors Turn To Cell Tower Information”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Health-Law Case Puts Roberts in Crucible; Chief Justices Maneuver to Shape Landmark Rulings With One Eye on History, Another on Supreme Court’s Reputation”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

Perhaps they are still writing 2011 on their checks: An opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today states at the outset that the case was “Argued February 16, 2012” and “Decided March 30, 2011.” That may set a new record for speed of decision.

Update The court has corrected the typo in the version of the opinion posted at the court’s web site, meaning that you’ll have to click here to view the version of the opinion that the court originally posted online this morning.

Available online from The New Republic: Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has an essay entitled “One Simple Argument Could Have Saved Obamacare; Too Bad Verrilli Didn’t Make It.”

Simon Lazarus has an essay entitled “In Defense of Don Verrilli: Why the Solicitor General Actually Did a Great Job Defending Obamacare.”

William Galston has an essay entitled “Why the Supreme Court Justices Won’t Be Crudely Political When They Rule on Obamacare.”

And Simon Meiners and Perry Stein have a blog post titled “Off the Record: The Ineffective Archival Methods of the Supreme Court.”

“Frank J. Montemuro Jr., 86, former Pa. justice”: This obituary appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Super PACs, donors turn sights on judicial branch”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“In Health Case, Appeals to a Justice’s Idea of Liberty”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has a news analysis that begins, “The way to frame a Supreme Court argument meant to persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is to talk about liberty.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “The Supreme Court will decide on the health-care law soon; It will tell you later.”

The Los Angeles Times has articles headlined “For government lawyer Verrilli, tough week on healthcare case” and “Bad omen for healthcare law: Many comments from the justices.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court likely to vote on health care law Friday.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined “Can you predict an outcome from Supreme Court justices’ questions?”

The Washington Times reports that “Parties likely to spin Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling; Decision expected by June.”

Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “If Supreme Court scraps health-care law, who wins politically? Harsh questioning from the Supreme Court majority has touched off new political calibrations over President Obama’s health-care law; In some ways, Democrats could be the winners.”

And the current issue of The Economist contains articles headlined “Full-court press: Barack Obama’s health-care law moves to America’s highest court, and looks to be in danger; The case could transform the power of the federal government” and “Umpire of liberty: In addition to its polarised Congress, America has a polarised Supreme Court.”

“Justice Department dropped case charging threats to Barack Obama”: At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a blog post that begins, “The Justice Department has quietly given up on a criminal case involving alleged death threats against Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, leaving in place a legal precedent that the department’s own lawyers predicted would have far-ranging repercussions by encouraging threats against political candidates and complicating the work of the Secret Service.”

“How To Defend Obamacare: Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was grilled by the Supreme Court’s conservatives; Here is what he should have said.” Law professor Akhil Reed Amar has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And Reuters Breakingviews columnist Reynolds Holding has a blog post entitled “Obama backs healthcare defender — until he doesn’t.”

“GOP ad plays with audio from Supreme Court hearing”: The Associated Press has this report.

Bloomberg News is reporting: Greg Stohr and Seth Stern have an article headlined “Secret Vote Opens Health Law Review Shaping Court Legacy.”

And Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Greg Stohr have an article headlined “Republicans Tampered With Court Audio in Obama Attack Ad.”

“Analysis: Chief Justice Roberts may cast deciding healthcare vote.” Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

In addition, Reuters has an article headlined “Analysis: Obama could see silver lining if healthcare law rejected.”

“Justice was blind to some facts in Idaho wetlands case”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.

“Amid Signs of Continued Slowdown, Senate Panel Approves Three Judicial Nominees”: Todd Ruger has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“When Stealing Isn’t Stealing”: Law professor Stuart P. Green has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Academic Built Case for Mandate in Health Care Law”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Parties Brace for Fallout in Court’s Ruling on Health Care.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court takes health care case behind closed doors.” And The AP also has a report headlined “3 days of hearings over, 2 justices may be key,”

“The Supreme Court Issues a 5-4 Decision on Where to Order Lunch”: Eric Hague has this item online at McSweeney’s.

And The Onion, meanwhile, reports that “Scalia Unable To Name All 9 Supreme Court Justices.” The Onion also has a newsbrief on the ACA arguments whose headline I won’t reproduce here because it contains the f-word.

“Big Case Stirs Up This ‘Hot Bench'”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin will have this article Thursday in The Wall Street Journal.

“A Moment of Silence for Obamacare: Prayers, depression, and Latin phrases. Obamacare looks to have had another very bad day.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Did Bloggers Kill the Health Care Mandate? A handful of right-wing legal experts have changed the way Americans view the Affordable Care Act. But why did they wage this battle in the media instead of in the courtroom?” Adam Teicholz has this interesting essay online at The Atlantic.

“Court says lawsuit alleging bogus parking tickets can proceed”: The Chicago Tribune has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

“Justices Ask if Health Law Is Viable Without Mandate”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes and N.C. Aizenman of The Washington Post have a news update headlined “On health-care hearing’s last day, court weighs severability, Medicaid expansion.” In addition, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an essay entitled “Judicial activists in the Supreme Court.”

David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Justices suggest Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional.” The newspaper also has a news update headlined “‘No contingency planning’ at White House if healthcare repealed.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Justices Question Extent of Federal Power; Arguments Over Health-Care Law Veer Into a Challenge to Medicaid as Obama’s Signature Measure Faces a Rough Ride.” The newspaper also has a news update headlined “Health Case Ripples Outward; Ruling Against Mandate Would Pressure Insurers, Loom Large in November Election.”

Richard Wolf and Brad Heath of USA Today has a news update headlined “Justices weigh health law’s fate if no insurance mandate.”

Michael Doyle and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court wraps up arguments over health care law.” And Erika Bolstad has an article headlined “Who’s the woman out front against health care law? Florida AG Pam Bondi.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court justices appear poised to sweep aside entire health-care law; Conservative Supreme Court justices argued Wednesday morning that without the individual mandate, the entire 2,700-page health-care law must be invalidated in full.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “In Health Care Case, The Roberts Court Comes Of Age.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has posts titled “Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?” and “Argument recap: Will Medicaid be sacrificed?”

“Some justices seem open to saving parts of law”: Mark Sherman and Pete Yost of The Associated Press have this report.

“White House voices confidence in solicitor general”: The Associated Press has this report.

Fortunately, the Solicitor General is not employed as the manager of a baseball team, because (as noted here) “Usually a vote of confidence from management is not a good omen for a baseball manager. More often than not, the manager is fired a short time later.”

“Obamacare at the Court: Contortions All Around.” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this essay in the April 19, 2012 issue of The New Republic.

Access online today’s ruling in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued three rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in FAA v. Cooper, No. 10-1024. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the ruling. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10-1211. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Setser v. United States, No. 10-7387. Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ginsburg joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Man can’t sue gov’t over records sharing.”

“Supreme Court sets up doubleheader finale on ObamaCare hearing”: FoxNews.com has this report.

James Vicini and Joan Biskupic of Reuters report that “Supreme Court weighs all-or-nothing on healthcare law.”

Greg Stohr and Bob Drummond of Bloomberg News report that “Court Considers Health Law Fate If Coverage Rule Voided.”

Politico.com reports that “Medicaid ruling could have far-reaching impact.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Health Reform In Supreme Court: End Of Affordable Care Act?”

Time magazine has an article headlined “Inside the Supreme Court: Why Obamacare Supporters Are Getting So Nervous.”

And ABC News has a blog post titled “Six Years of Silence for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.”

“Supreme Court TV cancelled: Televised judicial proceedings would educate and ensure transparency.” Emily Miller of The Washington Times has this op-ed.

“Back home, NJ Supreme Court nominee is just Mr. Mayor”: This article appears today in The Bergen Record.

“‘I Do Not Think the United States Would Come to an End’: If the Supreme Court stopped telling Congress and the president which laws they can pass.” Law professor Jamal Greene has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.