“Sources: One of Gov. Christie’s Supreme Court nominees lacks votes to advance past Senate panel.” This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

“Supreme Court should lift its blackout; The high court’s ban on live TV coverage of oral arguments is a national shame”: Law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Eric J. Segall have this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

And in related news coverage, The Hill has a blog post titled “Sen. Sessions blocks bill that would force cameras in Supreme Court for health care arguments.”

“Court Appears to Be Wary Hearing Free-Speech Case”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court appears to side with Secret Service agents who protected Cheney.”

The Denver Post reports that “Denver lawyers address Supreme Court in case over Secret Service arrest.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Does Secret Service protection trump speech rights? Supreme Court hears case; A Colorado man arrested in 2006 after telling Vice President Cheney what he thought of the Iraq war alleges that Secret Service agents retaliated against him for his opinions.”

“Never Before”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Court revives Ala. inmate’s execution appeal”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has revived an Alabama death row inmate’s challenge of his state’s new three-drug lethal injection protocol.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“How Obama Learned To Love Military Commissions; At least one good thing came out of the war on terror: We now know that military commissions are the right solution to a tough problem.” Law professor Jack Goldsmith has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Courtly Battle in Health-Care Case”: Jess Bravin will have this article Thursday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Justices’ Ruling Expands Rights of Accused in Plea Bargains”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court expands plea bargain rights of criminal defendants.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court expands defendant’s rights in plea deals; In two 5-4 decisions, the Supreme Court rules that defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to a competent lawyer’s advice when deciding whether to accept a plea deal.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Rulings Expand Right to Counsel.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices say defendants who get bad advice on plea bargains deserve relief.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Expands Defendants’ Plea Bargain Rights.”

“Without Precedent: The Supreme Court weighs Obamacare.” Adam J. White has this article in the March 26, 2012 issue of The Weekly Standard.

“Property owners who want to build get a boost against regulators”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Court backs Idaho couple in battle with EPA.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “EPA wetlands order can be challenged by land owners, Supreme Court rules; The Idaho couple, saying the ‘EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines’ to halt building of their dream home, thanks Supreme Court justices for ‘affirming’ their right to a court hearing.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “‘Little guy’ wins high court fight over property rights.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Rules For Idaho Couple In EPA Battle.”

And Politico.com has an article headlined “SCOTUS: EPA’s Clean Water Act decisions can face court challenges.”

“Could SCOTUS Prometheus ruling be the end of human gene patents?” Terry Baynes has this report at Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight.

“Jury nullification a danger, judge says”: Reuters has this report.

“Dick Cheney Critic, Arrested After Touching The VP, Unlikely To Prevail In Supreme Court”: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Supreme Court rules unanimously against EPA in enforcement case”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.

“The Small Chance the Supreme Court Will Overturn the Health Care Act; If the Court rules against the individual mandate, it will upset a balance of power that has been in place since the New Deal”: Law professor Jack M. Balkin has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Court weighs US power over states in health case”: The Associated Press has this report.

“High court hears suit over Cheney event arrest”: The Associated Press has this report.

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Reichle v. Howards, No.11-262, at this link.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: New power for Secret Service.”

“Court sides with property owners over EPA”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “EPA Enforcement Tool Blunted by High Court in Wetlands Case.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Unanimously Allows Idaho Couple To Fight EPA.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Taking EPA to court.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062, at this link.

“Court: Lawyers must do good job on plea bargains.” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Defendants Entitled to Adequate Lawyer on Plea, Court Says.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court extends effective lawyer right to plea deals.”

And Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court: Plea Bargain Advice That Is Absurdly Bad Violates The Constitution.”

The news coverage linked above reports on today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444, and Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209.

“A brief overview of one of the busiest appellate courts in the United States.” The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has posted this video online at YouTube.

“In Health Care Case, Supreme Court Conservatives Could Go Either Way”: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

Programming note: To prepare for an appellate oral argument that I’m scheduled to present on Tuesday of next week in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, I will be meeting this morning with trial counsel in the case.

At 10 a.m. eastern time today, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue one or more rulings in argued cases. You can access those decisions via this link just moments after they are announced in Court.

Additional posts will appear here this afternoon.

“FBI Still Struggling With Supreme Court’s GPS Ruling”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“How the Historic Supreme Court Health-Care Arguments Will Unfold”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “White House Preps For Court’s Health Care Ruling.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: Health care, Part II — Fate of the mandate.”

“Prosser plans to ask other justices to recuse selves in discipline case”: The Wisconsin State Journal has an article that begins, “Embattled Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser said Monday he will likely ask other members of the court to recuse themselves from deciding on the disciplinary complaint filed against him last week — an action that, if successful, would appear to kill the case.”

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear of Colorado arrest after Cheney confrontation”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

“Panel chosen by Christie endorses N.J. Supreme Court nominees”: Today’s edition of The Newark Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “Faced with a state Supreme Court nomination in jeopardy and hearings a day away, the Christie administration countered critics of both nominees Tuesday with the endorsement of an advisory panel he had hand-picked.”

“Health care law’s defenders look to George Washington”: Richard Wolf will have this article Wednesday in USA Today.

“Justices Back Mayo Clinic Argument on Patents”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an article headlined “Top Court’s Patent Rejection Alarms the Biotech Industry.”

Wednesday’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune will contain an article headlined “Court backs Mayo in patent case; Justices ruled Prometheus Labs had tried to patent laws of nature.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Freeing doctors to practice.”

“Justices Limit Suits Filed Over Family Leave Act Violations”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rules that states can’t be sued for denying workers medical leave.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Court votes to shield state agencies that deny unpaid sick leave for new parents.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Does Supreme Court decision on sick leave hint at health-care law ruling? The sick leave provision and health-care law rely on different sections of the Constitution, but Supreme Court-watchers noted with interest that the justices found Congress had overstepped its authority.”

“Supreme Court Revisits Issue of Harsh Sentences for Juveniles”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times. Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain an editorial entitled “Cruel and Unusual Punishment for 14-Year-Olds.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court debates whether young murderers should get life without parole.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court troubled by mandatory life terms for child criminals; The justices seem closely split and uncertain over whether to set new constitutional limits on prison terms for murderers younger than 14.”

Mary Orndorff of The Birmingham News has an update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Alabama case about life without parole for juvenile offenders.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Do 14-year-old killers deserve life without parole? Supreme Court hears cases; Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is seen as the potential swing vote in two cases questioning whether life without parole for 14-year-old killers is cruel and unusual punishment.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices mull whether life without parole appropriate for underage killers.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Takes On Life Without Parole For Teens Convicted Of Murder.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “The Supreme Court’s Guide to Good Parenting: When it comes to punishing children, the Supreme Court doesn’t have a clue.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Debates Life Without Parole For Juveniles.”

“Why California’s chief justice is taking on the Legislature: As head of the California court system, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye is in a power struggle with lawmakers; It points to a delicate balance for judges.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Court wary of life without parole for juveniles”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs if teen murderers must get chance of parole.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Compromise on youth sentences?”

Welcome back, Cotterman: Late yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc in United States v. Cotterman.

The majority opinion that a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued in the case on March 30, 2011 — nearly one year ago — begins, “Today we examine a question of first impression in the Ninth Circuit: whether the search of a laptop computer that begins at the border and ends two days later in a Government forensic computer laboratory almost 170 miles away can still fall within the border search doctrine.” My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“Court questions life without parole for juveniles”: The Associated Press has this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted the transcripts of today’s oral argument in Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646, at this link and in Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, at this link.