“ObamaCare’s Latest Legal Challenge: Can the White House simply declare that the federal government is the 51st state?” Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain this editorial about a case scheduled for oral argument Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“High court with vocally devout justices set to hear religious objections to health-care law”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post. In addition, Walter Dellinger will have an op-ed titled “Contraception as a test of equality.”

And in Monday’s edition of The Washington Times, Tom Howell Jr. will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to weigh religious rights of corporations vs. Obamacare’s ‘contraception mandate.’”

“Sperm donor asks Supreme Court to block his genetic testing; Motion filed at last minute Friday in 2012 case”: In yesterday’s edition of The Topeka Capital-Journal, Steve Fry had an article that begins, “Just before the 5 p.m. deadline on Friday, the attorney representing a Topeka man who provided sperm to a same-sex couple to become pregnant filed an appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court asking justices to direct a district court judge to block genetic testing of the man.”

“Legal questions abound over same-sex marriages in Michigan”: The Detroit Free Press has this news update.

“N.J. chief justice could fall victim to political tides”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Conservatives won’t rule out another attempt to reappoint Nadon”: In Monday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine will have an article that begins, “The Conservative government is refusing to close the door to reappointing Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, a move that would pit the government against the country’s top judges.”

“Supreme Court’s Obsession With Secrecy”: Kenneth Jost has this post today at his blog, “Jost On Justice.”

“Tennessee plans executions in secret”: Brian Haas has this front page article today in The Tennessean.

“What Judge Friedman learned about gay families from a lesbian law clerk”: Columnist Brian Dickerson has this essay in today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press.

“The Trouble with Amicus Facts”: Law professor Alli Orr Larsen has posted this article online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Review: ‘Anita’ revisits the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas drama; In the documentary ‘Anita,’ Anita Hill, central figure in the ’91 Senate hearings to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas, candidly speaks of the grueling trial she endured to tell her truth.” Kenneth Turan, film critic for The Los Angeles Times, has this movie review.

In Friday’s edition of The New York Times, Miriam Bale had a movie review headlined “Alone Then, Supported Today: ‘Anita’ Revisits the Clarence Thomas Hearings.”

David Lewis of The San Francisco Chronicle has a review headlined “‘Anita’ review: Clunky film with a moving message.”

Alan Scherstuhl of OC Weekly has a movie review headlined “Speaking Truth to the Choir: This Anita Hill Doc Doesn’t Bother Making a Case.”

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of the A.V. Club has a review headlined “The documentary Anita reduces the Anita Hill story to one of generic uplift.”

And Odie Henderson of RogerEbert.com has this review of the movie.

Claire Suddath of Bloomberg Businessweek has an article headlined “New Anita Hill Film Recalls When Sexual Harassment Went Mainstream.”

Chris O’Falt of The Hollywood Reporter has an article headlined “Anita Hill on the ‘Surreal’ Hearings That Changed Her Life and the Country.”

Doug Oakley of The Oakland Tribune has an article headlined “New film on Anita Hill revisits landmark sexual harassment saga.”

The Brandeis Hoot has an article headlined “Anita Hill opens up about power dynamics in documentary ‘Anita.’”

The Daily Californian reports that “Anita Hill documentary recalls past for present gender equity fight.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a blog post titled “‘All These Issues Are Still With Us’: Talking to Anita Hill, as truthful as ever.”

And at The Huffington Post, Natasha Bach has a report headlined “Anita Hill: Joe Biden Botched The Clarence Thomas Hearings.”

“Alabama Supreme Court upholds decision to toss ‘birther’ lawsuit, Chief Justice Roy Moore dissents”: Brian Lawson of The Huntsville Times has this report on a per curiam order of affirmance, accompanied by two concurring opinions and a 57-page dissent, that the Supreme Court of Alabama issued Friday.

“Justice Scalia Gave An Intriguing Non-Answer Question To A Question About NSA Spying”: Business Insider has this report.

“Supreme Court considers 2004 Jacksonville protest; Secret Service used force to clear street when Bush changed his plans for dinner”: This article appears today in the Mail Tribune of Medford, Oregon.

“Health law birth control coverage before justices”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

In today’s edition of The Oklahoman, Chris Casteel has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court justices to hear Hobby Lobby arguments on religion and contraception; Oral arguments are set for Tuesday in the most closely-watched case of the Supreme Court’s term; Hobby Lobby, the Oklahoma City-based chain, says mandate to provide certain contraceptives as health benefits violates company’s religious beliefs.” He also has related articles headlined “Hobby Lobby case: Christians or corporations? The divisive struggle in the U.S. Supreme Court between Christian business owners and the U.S. government over contraceptives has become known around the country as the Hobby Lobby case” and “Peyote, Hobby Lobby and the religious freedom law.”

Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court Takes Up Dispute Over Obamacare and Religion.”

Today’s edition of The Deseret News contains an editorial titled “In Hobby Lobby case, freedom is under threat.”

Online at USA Today, Ken Starr has an op-ed titled “Obamacare shackles religious freedom; The Hobby Lobby case could deal blow to people of faith.”

At The Daily Beast, the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson, the IX Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, has an essay titled “Religious Freedom, or a License to Discriminate? Religious conservatives are moving to build protection for discrimination into the law; If the Supreme Court lets them, we could end up with a country that can’t be governed.”

And at The Huffington Post, Lynn M. Paltrow has an essay titled “If Hobby Lobby Wants to Deny Insurance Coverage of Birth Control It Should Stop Selling Knitting Needles, Too.”