“Appeals court restores rules for Minnesota judicial races”: This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

And The Associated Press reports that “Wersal to take judicial politics case to U.S. Supreme Court again.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Eighth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Arizona Supreme Court hears Mesa tattoo case”: Today’s edition of The Arizona Republic contains an article that begins, “The Arizona Supreme Court is deliberating whether the First Amendment rights of tattoo artists trump a city’s right to regulate them under zoning codes.”

“Evidence vs. Orie hangs over Melvin”: This article appears today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

And The Associated Press reports that “Orie’s acquittal on Melvin charges raises question.”

“Fast-track plea on gay marriage”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Seeking a fast track for two test cases on the constitutionality of the federal law barring benefits for legally-married same-sex couples, the Obama Administration this week asked the Ninth Circuit Court to go directly into review before a full 11-judge bench instead of a three-judge panel.” You can access the federal government’s motion for initial hearing en banc at this link.

“Citizens United sequel filed”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “Group formally requests Supreme Court to decide on campaign spending law” that begins, “A conservative group challenging some Montana limits on corporate campaign spending is formally asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case.”

And the James Madison Center for Free Speech issued a news release yesterday headlined “U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Montana Rejection of Citizens United.”

You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.

“Justices Question Health Law”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

Laura Litvan and Kathleen Hunter of Bloomberg News report that “Both Parties See Signs They’ll Win in U.S. Health Ruling.”

David Ingram of Reuters reports that “Twitter coverage of Supreme Court gets shut down.”

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has an article headlined “For the lawyers, a contrast in styles during Tuesday’s arguments.”

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.

“Former Rep. William Jefferson’s conviction upheld by appeals panel”: Bruce Alpert of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Court refuses to revive suit by ex-driver Mayfield”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“You Say Tax, I Say Penalty — On day one of the Supreme Court arguments over Obamacare, the justices did what they do best: argue over boring old 19th-century statutes for the fun of it.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

And law professor David L. Franklin has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Marbury v. Medicine: The key to saving Obamacare may be hidden in America’s first great constitutional case.”

“Government wants faster review of gay-rights case”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

“Federal judges in New Orleans uphold dismissal of lawsuit over Mississippi girl’s rape”: The Associated Press has this report on an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued last Friday.

“Court to rule on reliability of drug-sniffing dogs”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Justices Decline to Say if Jerusalem-Born Americans Can Claim Israeli Birthplace”: This article will appear Tuesday in The New York Times.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court orders judicial solution to Congress-State dispute on Jerusalem; Is Jerusalem part of Israel? In a case concerning a US citizen’s birth certificate, the Supreme Court said a federal court should rule on an issue that has divided Congress and the State Department.”

Haaretz has an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court: Federal judges to rule on ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ passport case; Court rules that the American parents of a boy born in Jerusalem can argue that their son’s U.S. passport may list Israel as his birthplace.”

Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Judges can rule on passport law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Orders Trial in Case of ‘Israel’ on Passport.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Enabling a constitutional fight.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v. Clinton, No. 10-699, at this link.

“State Sen. Jane Orie guilty on 14 counts, acquitted of 10”: Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this news update.

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “Jury convicts Sen. Orie of 14 charges.”

“Justices Hear Argument That Health Case Is Premature”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update. And Kevin Sack has a news update headlined “Arguing That Health Mandate Is Not a Tax, Except When It Is.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court begins review of health-care law.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court appears unlikely to put off healthcare ruling.”

The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Justices Hear Health-Law Arguments.”

Brad Heath and Richard Wolf of USA Today have a news update headlined “Supreme Court dives into health care debate.”

Michael Doyle and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Arguments begin before Supreme Court in historic health law case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Health-care challenge at US Supreme Court: Justices seek way past Day 1 hurdle; Health-care reform proponents and detractors were on the same side Monday at the US Supreme Court, advocating that the justices move on to the constitutional issue on Tuesday.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices moving to heart of health care overhaul.”

Joan Biskupic and James Vicini of Reuters report that “Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Court Opens Health-Care Clash With Law That May End Case.”

This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Supreme Court Justices Weigh Health Care Law” and “Health Care Arguments Center On Taxes.” Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment entitled “Health Care Law’s First Day In Supreme Court.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Moving on to the mandate.”

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.

“Supreme court refuses tobacco firm appeal in smoker case”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

Bloomberg News reports that “R.J. Reynolds Loses Bid to Fight Smoker’s Verdict in High Court.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t get involved in Florida tobacco case.”

“Supreme Court Declines Appeals on Religion in Public Education”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“Justices request Obama admin views on truck-pollution initiative”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.

Programming note: Due to an appellate-related hearing for a client early this afternoon in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, additional posts will appear here mid to late afternoon today.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue an Order List today, which should be available at this link shortly after 10 a.m. eastern time. In addition, according to “SCOTUSblog,” the Court will issue one or more rulings in argued cases today. Once the Court posts the opinion(s) online moments after they are announced, you can access them via this link.

Finally for now, C-SPAN is offering extensive coverage of this week’s health care oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. C-SPAN expects to begin broadcasting the audio from today’s oral argument around 1 p.m. eastern time today.

“Health Act Arguments Open With Obstacle From 1867”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court takes up fight over Obama health law.”

Joan Biskupic and James Vicini of Reuters report that “Supreme Court weighs historic healthcare law.”

Politico.com has reports headlined “5 things to watch in health law oral arguments” and “Pick an ending: 6 ways the Supreme Court might rule.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com has a report headlined “Health care reform — now it’s up to the Supreme Court to diagnose.”

Roll Call has a report headlined “Supreme Court Ruffles Democrats’ Feathers; As Health Care Law Faces Scrutiny, Liberals Remember Past Decisions That Displeased Them.”

Massimo Calabresi of Time magazine has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Why It’s Not About Obama.”

And online at The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn has a blog post entitled “Is There a Weak Link in the Government’s Case for Obamacare?”

“Will Supreme Court hear health mandate at all?” David G. Savage will have this article Monday in The Los Angeles Times.

And Politico.com reports that “Ben Nelson stands by his key vote.”

“Ruling on health care case hard to predict; Conservative justices could side either way”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Times.

Today’s edition of The Tampa Bay Times contains an article headlined “Health care case puts spotlight on Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s swing vote.”

Monday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article headlined “Waiting (and Sleeping) in Line, for View of Health Care History.”

Monday’s edition of The Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph will contain an article headlined “Nashua grad setting up camp, hoping to hear Supreme Court arguments on health care.”

Columnist Robert J. Samuelson of The Washington Post has an essay entitled “Obama’s ego trip.”

And at Politico.com, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has an essay entitled “Healthy reminder of SCOTUS’s role.” In addition, former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle has an essay entitled “Killing the mandate won’t fix health care.”

“Before Health Case, Lawyers Train for Legal Marathon”: Adam Liptak will have this article Monday in The New York Times. The newspaper also has a “Room for Debate” discussion online titled “Is the Court Being Thoughtful or Partisan?”

In Monday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear arguments on timing of health-care ruling.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Two formidable lawyers to spar at Supreme Court over health care reform law; Two attorneys will handle the lion’s share of the arguments before the Supreme Court in the Obama health care reform case; In one corner, US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli; In the other, the indomitable Paul Clement.”

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “Utah health care reform foes to attend landmark Supreme Court hearing.”

The Seattle Times has an article headlined “If ‘Obamacare’ falls, McKenna could pay political price; State Attorney General Rob McKenna has long said he isn’t trying to overturn the entire federal health-care law by joining a lawsuit against it; But those statements are at odds with the legal arguments plaintiffs in the case have made in McKenna’s name.”

The Guardian (UK) reports that “US healthcare reforms battle moves to supreme court; Attorney generals representing 26 states claim Barack Obama’s sweeping healthcare reforms violate the constitution.”

Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has articles headlined “High court has a range of personalities, styles” and “Multi-hour arguments heard at Supreme Court.” The AP also reports that “Argument up first: Is it too soon to decide?”

Bloomberg News reports that “Plouffe Says Americans Don’t Want ‘Refight’ on Health Care.” In addition, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay entitled “Supreme Court Should Heed Economic Sense on Health Care.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com has reports headlined “The U.S. Supreme Court: How it works“; “Health care’s big four issues: What the justices will tackle“; “The Supreme Court and election-year blockbusters“; “Health law opponent: ‘Congress made a bad situation worse’“; “Health law supporter: ‘It really is going to help the American public’“; and “Health care reform FAQ: A CNN guide to the Supreme Court’s arguments.”

And Monday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times will contain an editorial entitled “Healthcare law’s day in court: After numerous lower-court rulings, it’s up to the Supreme Court to find it constitutional.”

“Clash over floating home reaches US Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Essay: Taking its place in history…” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Delays Keep Former Qaeda Child Soldier at Guantanamo, Despite Plea Deal”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times.

“Don’t Blame The Supreme Court For Citizens United — Blame Congress, The FEC And The IRS.” Dan Froomkin has this article online at The Huffington Post.