“A Litmus Test for ObamaCare and the Rule of Law: The president has ignored the law’s plain language; Now the Supreme Court decides if that’s all right.” Ilya Shapiro and Josh Blackman will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

You can freely access the full text of the op-ed via Google.

“Justices on the stage: Why Americans are increasingly fascinated by their highest court.” David Rennie has this essay in the February 28, 2015 issue of The Economist magazine.

“Can life in prison be worse than death? Some Tsarnaev jurors think so.” Masha Gessen of The Washington Post has this report.

“2nd Circuit was right to curtail insider trading cases: profs’ amicus brief.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

One of the amicus briefs to which Frankel’s article links discloses that Reed Smith practices law at Cooley LLP. And, demonstrating that turnabout is fair play, a Google search discloses that Cooley practices law at Reed Smith LLP.

“Can Tom Wolf really kill the death penalty?” Philadelphia Weekly has this report.

“Book review: Law professor, feminist, and jurist extraordinaire.” Today at “SCOTUSblog,” Barbara Babcock has this review of the new book “The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

And yesterday at “Hamilton & Griffin on Rights,” Scott Dodson had a post titled “Why I Edited This Book: Scott Dodson, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

“Supreme Court Justice Talks Constitution, Structure Of Government During Fort Smith Visit”: The Times Record of Fort Smith, Arkansas has this news update.

The Missouri Law Review symposium issue celebrating the late Anthony Lewis and exploring the future of legal journalism is now available online: You can access the contents via this link.

The issue includes Adam Liptak’s keynote address and articles written by, among others, Lincoln Caplan (“Anthony Lewis: What He Learned at Harvard Law School“); Lyle Denniston (“Anthony Lewis: Pioneer in the Court’s Pressroom“); Linda Greenhouse (“The Rigorous Romantic: Anthony Lewis on the Supreme Court Beat“); Dahlia Lithwick (“Anthony Lewis“); Howard Mintz (“Legal Journalism Today: Change or Die“); Gene Policinski (“Setting the Docket: News Media Coverage of Our Courts — Past, Present and an Uncertain Future“); David A. Sellers (“As Today’s Tony Lewises Disappear, Courts Fill Void“); and former Missouri Chief Justice Michael A. Wolff (“Making Judge-Speak Clear Amidst the Babel of Lawspeakers“).

And for those who like to watch, you can access videos from the symposium — which occurred a little over one year ago — via this link.

“Roberts at 10: Turning Back the Clock on Protections for Racial Equality.” David H. Gans has this issue brief online at the Constitutional Accountability Center.

“Supreme Court protesters say no plans to disrupt Obamacare case”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“If Supreme Court says no, they’d lose health insurance help”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Federal appeals court orders Alan Newton be paid $18.5 million for wrongful rape conviction”: The New York Daily News has this report.

And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. court restores $18 million award to man freed in NYC rape case.”

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

“Cop who spoke out against arrest quotas can sue NYPD: court.” The New York Post has this news update.

The New York Daily News has an article headlined “NYPD cop who blew whistle on quota system can pursue suit against city: Federal Appeals court.”

And The Associated Press reports that “NYC police officer’s lawsuit over arrest quotas gets revived.”

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

“S.C. Supreme Court freezes James Brown estate case”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of the Aiken Standard.

“South Carolina court orders J&J to pay $136 mln in Risperdal case”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued yesterday.

“The Alternative Reality of King v. Burwell”: Rob Weiner had this post yesterday at “ACSBlog.”

“How a federal judge pushed Big Tobacco into $100 mln deal with smokers”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight yesterday had a report that begins, “In July 2013, a federal appeals court overseeing thousands of individual smokers’ suits against Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard threw up its hands in defeat.”

“US Supreme Court says NC dental board can’t regulate teeth whitening”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Justices Find Antitrust Law Valid Against Dental Board.” In addition, Vikas Bajaj has a “Taking Note” essay titled “A Plot to Keep Teeth Whitening Expensive.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court restricts state license schemes that limit competition.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Justices: Dentists can’t decide who whitens your teeth.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “Supreme Court Affirms FTC Antitrust Authority Over Licensing Boards; Decision protects power of regulators to scrutinize such professional panels.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has a blog post titled “Supreme Court says ‘open wide’ to North Carolina teeth-whitening business.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Professional Boards Opened to New Scrutiny by Top U.S. Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court says state dental board can’t regulate teeth whitening.”

And Nina Totenberg of NPR has a blog post titled “Dentists Have No Right To Limit Who Can Whiten Your Teeth, Justices Say.”

“Poster Child: How Terrance Williams became the face of the death penalty debate in Pennsylvania.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Marshall Project.

“Future of ‘mental anguish’ law at stake in federal court”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Mumia Abu-Jamal, who’s serving a life term for the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer, is among the plaintiffs asking a federal judge to block a Pennsylvania law they say violates prisoners’ free-speech rights.”

“Obamacare defense is tailored for key Supreme Court justices”: David G. Savage has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

And David Nather and Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico.com report that “Supreme Court ruling could upturn Obamacare politics.”

“Does a website for models have a duty to warn users about rapists? Facebook, Craigslist, eBay fear a chilling effect on Web operators.” David Kravets of Ars Technica has this report today.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit panel rehearing order can be accessed here.

“How the Supreme Court Could Save Obamacare Again”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View, along with a related essay titled “How Dr. Seuss Could Save Obamacare.”

“More on the Howard Shipley matter”: John Steele has this post today at his blog, “Legal Ethics Forum.”

“Justices appear to favor Muslim denied job over headscarf”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“BP appeals U.S. judge’s ruling on size of Gulf oil spill”: Reuters has a report that begins, “BP Plc on Monday appealed a federal judge’s finding of the size of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which leaves the company potentially liable to pay $13.7 billion in fines.”

“Federal judge indicates he intends to allow eight released from prison in Amish beard-cutting case to remain free”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.

1, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined, in Yates v. United States, No 13-7451. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Elena Kagan issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, No. 13-534. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Justices: Fisherman is off the hook in grouper-tossing case” and “Supreme Court drills dentists in teeth-bleaching dispute.”

“The latest Obamacare challenge: What you need to know.” Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court decides water dispute”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Lincoln Journal Star.

The Omaha World-Herald reports that “Nebraska should pay Kansas $5.5M over river dispute, Supreme Court says.”

And at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “Thomas, Scalia Use Obscure Water Battle To Tweak The Majority.”

“High Court Appears Ready to Allow Felon to Sell Gun Collection; Decision in the case, Henderson v. U.S., is expected before July”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Gun ownership rights appear to be moving target for U.S. justices.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports “High court weighs right of convicted felon to sell guns.”

And Stephanie Condon of CBSNews.com has a report headlined “The 25-year-olds shaping the Supreme Court docket.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Henderson v. United States, No. 13-1487.

“Supreme Court Receptive to Investors in 401(k) Case; Justices suggest appeals court was wrong in Edison suit”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court poised to protect employees from high fees in 401(k) plans.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices signal support for plaintiffs in Edison 401(k) case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. High Court Hints at New Monitoring Rules for 401(k) Plans.”

And Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices signal support for investors in 401(k) lawsuits.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Tibble v. Edison Int’l, No. 13-550.

“‘Torture Report’ Reshapes Conversation In Guantanamo Courtroom”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Supreme Court to hear case of woman who wasn’t hired because of head scarf”: Robert Barnes has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear Abercrombie headscarf case: What’s at stake?”

The Guardian (UK) reports that “US supreme court hears Abercrombie & Fitch religious discrimination case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices weigh case of Muslim denied job over headscarf.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court to hear religious freedom case.”

Paul Barrett of Bloomberg News reports that “This Supreme Court Case Unites Religions Against Abercrombie & Fitch; The retailer faces a religious-bias challenge for rejecting an applicant who wore a hijab.”

And at FiveThirtyEight, Oliver Roeder has a report headlined “Previewing The Supreme Court’s Abercrombie & Fitch Case.”

Ninth Circuit opts for more Model Mayhem: Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted panel rehearing in the case captioned Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc. dba Modelmayhem.com. You can access today’s order at this link.

In coverage of today’s order, Scott Graham of The Recorder reports that “Ninth Circuit Agrees to Revisit Ruling in Model Rape Case.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

The very same three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued its original, unanimous ruling in the case on September 17, 2014. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears here and here.

Writing at the “Technology & Marketing Law Blog,” Venkat Balasubramani discussed the Ninth Circuit’s original ruling in a post titled “9th Circuit Creates Problematic ‘Failure To Warn’ Exception to Section 230 Immunity — Doe 14 v. Internet Brands.”