In light of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week, columnist George Will looks into what the Supreme Court has called “the evolving standards of decency." Originalism holds that the Constitution’s language should be construed to mean what the words meant at the time to those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. On Monday, the court's ruling about punishment vexed the four justices (John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito) most sympathetic to originalism, who dissented. The majority held that sentencing laws that mandate life imprisonment without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violate the Eighth Amendment. The Leaf Chronicle has the column

Potentially lost in the flurry of news coverage about the Supreme Court's upcoming  health care decision was the court's action on Monday granting certiorarii in 11 cases. Among those to be considered during the next term is one that could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring class actions in federal courts, according to the ABA Journal. "The issue here," according to one observer, "is whether the plaintiffs have to show at the class-certification stage that they have a method of proving damages that is admissible at trial and common for all plaintiffs." Antitrust lawyer Ankur Kapoor says this could “be the big one” and "whatever the [court] says about this, the legal journals will be writing about it for years."  SCOTUSBlog has the list of all petitions granted.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press has this article from the Associated Press looking at six possible outcomes in tomorrow’s likely healthcare decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Check it out here

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam says the state is ready for Thursday’s expected Supreme Court ruling on the federal health care overhaul, no matter what the court decides. That’s because the state has been carefully keeping its options open for the last year, according to the Nashville Public Radio. If the law stands, the state’s main responsibility would be setting up an insurance exchange. Haslam says the state has been using federal grants to pay for planning its exchange, so it will be ready to meet the law’s requirements.

Come Thursday morning about 10 a.m. Eastern time, SCOTUSblog.com will be blogging the court's decisions in real time. On Tuesday, when court watchers thought a decision might be announced in the health care case, the blog crashed after being overwhelmed by visitors.  For tomorrow's release of the decision, the site has created a back up site to handle any technical problems. SCOTUSblog founders Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe expect at least 250,000 visitors to follow the proceedings tomorrow – a record for the site. The blog, which began as a side business for the two, is quickly becoming the “go-to” site for news about the Supreme Court. NPR looks at the origins and impact of SCOTUSblog.

A major effort by Montana, campaign finance reform groups and more than 20 states to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its widely criticized Citizens United decision has failed. Today, the justices reversed a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that upheld that state's century-old ban on corporate spending in state elections. The Washington Times has more

Justice Kagan announced the opinion for the court in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs today, holding, in a five-to-four vote, that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” SCOTUSblog has the story. The American Bar Association hailed the ruling saying, “We are gratified that the court followed its precedents…in determining that juvenile offenders are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. Juveniles are less morally culpable and more capable of rehabilitation than adults convicted of the same crimes.” Read the ABA’s brief in the cases

The nine U.S. Supreme Court justices and more than three dozen other people have kept quiet for more than two months about how the high court is going to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. Unlike the Congress and the executive branch, which seem to leak information "willy-nilly," the Associated Press says, "the Supreme Court, from the chief justice down to the lowliest clerk, appears to truly value silence when it comes to upcoming court opinions, big and small. No one talks, and that's the way they like it." The decision is expected to come Thursday, when the justices plan to complete their nine-month term.

The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected key provisions in Arizona's tough anti-immigration law, but let stand controversial police checks of immigration status. In Arizona v. U.S., a 5-3 majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that three of four provisions in the law challenged by the Obama Administration were preempted by federal immigration law. Kennedy said the three provisions were preempted because they either conflicted with federal law or because Congress has "occupied the field" with federal regulation, and "even complementary state regulation" is impermissible.

But the majority held that Section 2(B) was not preempted -- at least not until there has been experience with its application. Under that section, state officers are to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of any person they stop, detain or arrest on some other legitimate basis if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully in the country. Anyone who is arrested also must have his or her immigration status determined before being released. In light of this decision, the American Bar Association called on authorities "to avoid unnecessary, prolonged detention of individuals who are lawfully present in the United States." The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association also weighed in with its reaction, saying it is concerned that "communities of color throughout our nation will be negatively targeted as a result, and that community policing efforts on the part of law enforcement will also suffer."

Read more about the decision in the Blog of Legal Times

With decisions ranging from broadcast indecency to union fees and corporate fines, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the term's biggest and likely most controversial rulings to come next week. After these four rulings, five cases remain, including health care and life without parole for juvenile murders. The court will return on Monday and may schedule an additional decision day later in the week. Learn more from the National Law Journal