The case of the 700-year sentence of imprisonment: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this opinion today.

Senior Circuit Judge John T. Noonan issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which he observed: “No known human being has the capacity to live 700 years. No living human being is likely to live 700 years. On its face, the sentence is impossible to execute. The United States asks us to affirm this sentence. It asks us to affirm a sentence that cannot be carried out. I do not believe that we should participate in this utterly empty gesture.”

“Court won’t reconsider bone marrow payments ruling”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Appeals court united on compensation for bone marrow donors.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Federal court rejects ‘Joe the Plumber’ suit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“Taste-Testing Nutraloaf: The prison food that just might be unconstitutionally bad.” Back on June 24, 2008, I had this post linking to an essay that Slate published that day.

Today, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued this opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing a prisoner’s challenge to a nutraloaf diet.

“Appeals court restores MN judicial election rules”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A deeply split federal appeals court restored Minnesota’s restrictions on fundraising and endorsements by judicial candidates on Tuesday, reversing an earlier decision that held the state’s rules unconstitutional on free-speech grounds.”

And Terry Baynes of Reuters reports that “8th Circuit upholds judicial campaign restrictions.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s ruling from July 2010 can be accessed here.

“Place Your Bets on Obamacare: It appears we’ll have a photo finish; Obama’s signature legislative achievement will probably rise or fall on the opinion of John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Justices Have Hard Questions on Insurance Requirement”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update. The newspaper also has a news analysis headlined “On Health Care Law, a Familiar Split.” In addition, today’s newspaper contained a front page article headlined “Vindication for Challenger of Health Care Law.”

Robert Barnes and N.C. Aizenman of The Washington Post have a news update headlined “Supreme Court turns to key constitutional issue in health-care law.”

David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “Skeptical Kennedy signals trouble for Obama’s healthcare law.”

The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Conservative Justices Challenge Government Over Health Law.”

Brad Heath and Richard Wolf of USA Today have a news update headlined “Conservative justices criticize individual mandate.”

Michael Doyle and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers report that “On Day 2, Supreme Court health care arguments center on mandate.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court health-care hearing: How bad does it look for ‘Obamacare’? Based on justices’ questions in the two-hour Supreme Court health-care hearing, the fate of ‘Obamacare’ is in peril; Justice Kennedy expressed strong concerns about the individual mandate.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices signal deep trouble for health care law.” The AP also has a report headlined “Loss of insurance mandate wouldn’t kill health law.”

Joan Biskupic and James Vicini of Reuters report that “Supreme Court divided over Obama healthcare law.”

Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo of Bloomberg News report that “Some Justices Question Health Law’s Constitutionality.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Supreme Court Health Care Law: Justices Come Down Hard On The Mandate.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call.”

This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Supreme Court Justices Weigh Mandate“; “Health Care Mandate At Issue At Supreme Court“; “Supporter, Opponent Of Health Law Weigh In“; and “Arguments In Health Care Case.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment entitled “Health Law’s Individual Mandate Has It’s Day In Court.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made both the audio and the transcript of today’s oral argument in Department of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida, No. 11-398, available via this link.

Programming note: Today, I will be presenting an appellate oral argument on behalf of clients to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Additional posts will appear here this afternoon.

C-SPAN continues to provide extensive coverage of this week’s health care oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.