“Obama could target Supreme Court if health-care law falls”: Wednesday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail will contain this article.

“Sentencing Ruling Reflects Rethinking on Juvenile Justice”: This news analysis will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

“Arizona ruling won’t take effect until mid-July”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The most contentious part of Arizona’s immigration law won’t take effect until at least July 20.”

And Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain a news analysis headlined “Immigration Ruling Leaves Issues Unresolved.”

“Democrats lament not making healthcare sale”: Reuters has a report that begins, “Prominent U.S. Democrats conceded on Tuesday they could have done a better job of selling President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul to the public, but said the law could still be an effective campaign issue even if it is struck down by the Supreme Court.”

And at Politico.com, Elizabeth B. Wydra has an essay entitled “Supreme Court’s legitimacy at stake on Affordable Care Act.”

“Perhaps Justice Scalia is reading the wrong Constitution?” Walter Dellinger has this post online at Slate.

“Supreme Court takes on damaged-class issue in suit against Comcast”: The Philadelphia Inquirer contains this article today.

“Court Backs E.P.A. on Emissions Rules”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Va. challenge to EPA’s findings on greenhouse gas rejected.”

The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “In win for Obama, EPA regulations on emissions upheld by appeals court; Since a 2007 Supreme Court decision, the EPA has issued four regulations to curtail carbon emissions; Big industry groups and lawmakers from coal-mining and other energy-producing states have objected.”

And The Boston Globe has a blog post titled “Federal court dismisses challenge to clean-air rules spawned by Massachusetts lawsuit against EPA.”

My earlier coverage of today’s D.C. Circuit ruling appeared at this link.

“Speculation grows that Roberts will write majority opinion in health-care case”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

And Charles Lane has an op-ed entitled “Redefining American government through Obamacare” that begins, “We have two days until the Supreme Court rules on health care — two days until we find out whether Akhil Amar’s life has been a fraud.”

“Health care: Time to sum up.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“The Supreme Court: Just Politics by Other Means?” Nan Aron has this essay online today at The Huffington Post.

“That’s Just Nino: Scalia’s Arizona Dissent.” Jeffrey Toobin has this blog post today online at The New Yorker.

“SCOTUS to rule on military lying”: Politico.com has this report.

“Justices should use more than their gut and ‘brain science’ to decide a case.” Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has this post online at Slate.

“At least the court didn’t make Citizens United worse.” Walter Dellinger has this post online at Slate.

Slate gets a Posner to write about an end-of-Term U.S. Supreme Court ruling: A Posner, but not Richard A. Posner thus far.

Law professor Eric Posner has a jurisprudence essay entitled “The Imperial President of Arizona: The Supreme Court’s immigration ruling dramatically expanded executive power.”

This blog’s plan for covering Thursday’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court: I have appreciated or even been amused by certain blogs that have announced their plans for covering this Thursday’s expected rulings in the Affordable Care Act cases, the Stolen Valor Act case, and — most controversially of all — the RESPA case argued way back on November 28, 2011 (which apparently the Justices noticed only yesterday had yet to be decided).

Thus, for readers who likewise enjoy hearing about the plans of another, especially when set forth in the form of a chart, here goes:

1. 10 a.m. eastern time Thursday: Blog about the Supreme Court’s newly announced rulings and link to those opinions. On rare occasion, this blog links to a newly released opinion before a link to that very same opinion appears on the live blog maintained by “SCOTUSblog.”

2. Sometime between 11 and 11:30 a.m., travel with a friend to Citizens Bank Park in South Philadelphia to watch the Philadelphia Phillies host the Pittsburgh Pirates in a game scheduled to begin at 1:05 p.m.

3. Assuming no extra innings or weather-related delays, begin to travel back to the office or home sometime between 4 and 5 p.m.

4. Resume blogging about Thursday’s Supreme Court rulings and attempt to figure out what’s particularly worthwhile to link to.

5. Eventually, life returns to normal.

“U.S. court upholds EPA’s greenhouse gas rules”: Reuters has this report.

Bloomberg News reports that “EPA Greenhouse-Gas Rules Upheld By U.S. Appeals Court.”

The Associated Press reports that “Federal court upholds EPA’s global warming rules.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “Appeals court upholds EPA emission rules.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“The U.S. Immigration Ruling: A Hint on Healthcare?” Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this news analysis.

And online at The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “If You Think Monday Was Bad at the Supreme Court . . . .”

“Justice Kennedy Leans Liberal — for Now”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg News.

“Let’s hear it for Christine Fallon!” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

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

Update: Gina Passarella of The Legal Intelligencer has this tweet noting a comment one of the judges made during the oral argument that immediately preceded the case I argued.