“Lies About Military Honors Not Illegal, Court Finds”: The New York Times has this news update.
Robert Barnes and Michael E. Ruane of The Washington Post have a news update headlined “Supreme Court: Lying about military medals is protected by Constitution.”
Michael Doyle and Matthew Schofield of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court rejects ‘Stolen Valor’ law, says lying about military honors isn’t a crime.”
Evan Perez of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Strikes Down ‘Stolen Valor’ Law.”
This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Freedom of Speech and Knowing Falsehoods.”
Programming note: Additional posts will appear here later today, in accordance with this blog’s previously announced “plan for covering Thursday’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“Supreme Court upholds Obama healthcare law centerpiece”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
The U.S. Supreme Court has posted its health care ruling online: At this link. I have posted a back-up copy at this link.
“Obama’s Health-Care Overhaul Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Supreme Court upholds Obama law’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance.” The Associated Press has issued this news alert.
The AP’s initial report on the ruling, written by Mark Sherman, is headlined “High court upholds key part of Obama health law.”
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the remaining argued cases from October Term 2011: Today, the Court is expected to issue rulings in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, 10-708 (argued November 28, 2011); United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210 (argued February 22, 2012); and the Affordable Care Act cases, consisting of Department of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida, No. 11-398 (argued March 26, 2012 and March 27, 2012), National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393 (argued March 28, 2012), and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs., No. 11-400 (argued March 28, 2012).
1. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr, issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined. I have posted a back-up copy of the ruling at this link, because it is currently difficult to access via the Court’s web site.
2. In First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, 10-708, the Court issued a per curiam order dismissing the case as improvidently granted.
3. And in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, the Court’s syllabus describes the alignment of the decision as follows: “ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III-A, III-B, and III-D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.” You can access the ruling at this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Stolen Valor law.”
“Dred: Waiting for the Supreme Court.” Jill Lepore has this blog post online at The New Yorker.
“Health Care Reform v. the Founders”: The Wall Street Journal has posted online at this link David B. Rivkin Jr.’s op-ed, which originally appeared in that newspaper on September 29, 1993.
“Supreme Court to rule Thursday on health-care law”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.
“Reading the tea leaves on health care decision”: Jan Crawford of CBS News has this report.
“Obama and Roberts Legacies Are Intertwined”: Carol E. Lee and Jess Bravin have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.
You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
“Awaiting Ruling on Fairly Simple Questions About a Complex Health Law”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court to deliver health care ruling Thursday.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Obama’s Legacy At Risk After Winning Health-Care Fight.”
“In this action seven plaintiff States sought to recover proceeds of matured but unredeemed United States savings bonds from the United States Treasury.” So begins a lengthy ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today considering whether U.S. savings bonds are subject to escheat under state law. Attorney Carter G. Phillips argued the appeal on behalf of the states.
“White House unusually quiet before Supreme Court healthcare ruling”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
“The Roberts Court’s Liberal Turn on Juvenile Justice”: David S. Tanenhaus has this essay online at The New York Times.
In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain articles headlined “Supreme Court health care decision has Washington awaiting history” and “For SCOTUSblog, one goal: ‘Beat everybody’ and break news of health-care ruling.”
The newspaper will also contain an editorial entitled “Justice Scalia’s partisan discredit to the court.” And columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. will have an op-ed entitled “Justice Scalia must resign.”
“D-Day”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.
“A Dissent by Scalia Is Criticized as Political”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.
“Supreme Court forces Nike to defend its right not to defend its trademarks”: Erin Geiger Smith has this report at Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight.
“Obama to learn Supreme Court health verdict from news”: Reuters has this report.
And FoxNews.com has a report headlined “Fox News poll: Nation divided on health care law ahead of Supreme Court ruling.”
Update: At WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Jess Bravin has a post titled “Obama to Wait — Like Rest of Us — for Health Ruling.”
“How SCOTUS real estate case could affect Internet privacy litigation”: Nate Raymond has this report at Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight.
“Punitive damages award delayed”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Christian Pregnancy Center Freed From Abortion Postings”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “A Baltimore ordinance requiring a Christian ‘pregnancy center’ to post notices that it doesn’t offer abortion referrals or birth control violates its free speech rights, a federal appeals court in Virginia ruled.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court strikes down Md. pregnancy center ordinances.”
Today’s 2-to-1 rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit came in two separate cases, and you can access those rulings here and here.
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Medicaid Expansion Goes Overlooked In Supreme Court Anticipation” and “Still Unimplemented, Ariz. Law Has Chilling Effect.”
Access the two most recent entries in Slate’s “Supreme Court Year in Review”: Walter Dellinger has a post titled “Who lost Obamacare? Let’s evaluate the leading suspects.”
And Dahlia Lithwick has a post titled “Justice Scalia’s partisanship, judging Muppets, and the long wait for health care.”
“Age of Justices Raises Stakes of Presidential Vote”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.
“7th Circuit revives potash price-fixing lawsuit”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.
“Supreme Court Health Care Decision Will Define The Future Of The American Health Care System”: Jeffrey Young of The Huffington Post has this report.
“Few legal options for losers in EPA rule challenge”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.
“A reader’s guide to health care ruling”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“U.S. court: OK for jurors to take indictment home.” Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“[T]he llama incident returned with a vengeance.” If only he had DIRECTV instead of cable!
Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling that begins, “One December day, defendant Mark Burge’s llama escaped from its pen and wandered off.” Unlike in DIRECTV commercials, however, today’s ruling seems to have a satisfactory ending for the defendant, as the appellate court holds that “[t]he district court plainly erred in failing to exclude Burge’s llama abandonment conviction” in calculating a sentence under the federal Sentencing Guidelines for a later offense.
“Why Monday’s Immigration Decision Should Be a Model For Thursday’s Obamacare Ruling”: Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has this blog post online at The New Republic.
“Possible outcomes in pending health care law case”: The Associated Press has this report.
Online at The New Yorker, John Cassidy has a blog post titled “Health Care and the Supremes: Why the Right Has Already Won.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Randy Barnett has a post titled “Win or Lose, My Thanks.”
