“The Sound of Silence”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court concerned about police dogs at the front door”: Robert Barnes will have this article Thursday in The Washington Post. In addition, columnist Dana Milbank will have an op-ed entitled “The Supreme Court’s dog-day afternoon.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “High Court Weighs Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs.”

And online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “Why the Supreme Court Isn’t a Dog’s Best Friend: At least when it comes to drug sniffing dogs that police want to use without a warrant.”

“Justice Dept.” OK with new review of health law.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it does not object to reopening a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S.: New challenge to ACA OK.”

Update: In other coverage, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “White House won’t oppose new challenge to 2010 healthcare law.”

“At Manhattan federal court, working with the lights out”: Basil Katz and Joseph Ax of Reuters have this report.

“SCOTUS amicus brief could radically alter class action landscape”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“Supreme Court hears cases on drug-sniffing dogs”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “High court debates use of sniffer dogs: same as trick-or-treaters?”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court considers reach of drug-detection dogs; The cases of Franky and Aldo hinge on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.”

At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Jess Bravin has a post titled “The Supreme Court’s Dog Day.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Dogs at center of police search arguments.”

“Supreme Court hints at limits on dog sniffs for drugs”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: If you lose Scalia…”

“Uncommon Knowledge with Justice Antonin Scalia”: The Hoover Institution has today posted online the video of this interview with Justice Antonin Scalia.

In the November 2012 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “A Touch of Class: Certification, Says One Brief, ‘Is the Ballgame.’”

And Bryan A. Garner has an essay headlined “A Text on Textualism, Part 2: Garner and Scalia Offer More Outtakes from Their Latest Collaboration.”

“Filings up, opinions down at 5th Circuit”: John Council has this post today at the “Tex Parte Blog” of Texas Lawyer.

“Justices hear arguments over police dog use”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

“Thoughts on the Oral Arguments in the Dog Sniff Cases”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online the transcripts of today’s oral arguments. You can access at this link the transcript in Florida v. Jardines, No. 11-564. And you can access at this link the transcript in Florida v. Harris, No. 11-817.

“Grading the Solicitor General: A different way of keeping score.” Alan B. Morrison has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Republicans target three Florida Supreme Court justices”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“What Nov. 6 means for the Supreme Court: If Romney wins, we can expect a frighteningly conservative high court; A victory for Obama could mean a liberal majority for the first time since 1969.” Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky had this op-ed yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.

And at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay entitled “This Election Is About the Court, Not the Economy.”

“FBI investigating Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway”: This article appears today in The Detroit Free Press.

And The Detroit News reports today that “FBI reportedly investigates Michigan Supreme Court justice; Hathaway’s real estate transactions questioned.”

“Supreme Court to revisit use of dogs as basis for drug searches; In two Florida cases, the court will decide whether a police dog’s alert is cause for searches. Some caution against using canines in place of search warrants”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A Labrador retriever and a pot bust: A Florida case involving the use of a drug-sniffing police dog will test the limits of the 4th Amendment.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court is asked to be skeptical of drug-sniffing dogs.”

Warren RIchey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court to consider how and when police can use drug-sniffing dogs; The US Supreme Court considers Wednesday whether the Florida Supreme Court was correct in making it harder for law enforcement to use dogs to discover illicit drugs in a home or vehicle.”

At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dogs Pass Constitutional Smell Test.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: Drug-sniffing dogs and privacy.”

Online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Can Fido Find the Drugs? Readers respond with their own stories of drug-sniffing dogs.”

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Can Drug-Sniffing Dog Prompt Home Search?”