“Muhammad executed for sniper killing; 10 died in Oct. 2002 rampage; what motivated two shooters remains unclear”: Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain this article, along with an essay by Paul Duggan entitled “Sniper’s imprint, faded, remains perceptible.”

Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article headlined “Sniper Who Killed 10 Is Executed in Virginia.”

And The Baltimore Sun has a news update headlined “D.C.-area sniper Muhammad executed; Makes no last statement; Va. governor denies convicted sniper’s clemency request.”

“Divorce may mean retiring is delayed; Court says alimony might force some to work more years”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

The New York Times reports today that “Retirees Still Liable for Alimony, Massachusetts Court Rules.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mass. high court says alimony can continue after retirement.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.

“DC sniper execution: why his case moved so quickly; For John Allen Muhammad, the convicted DC sniper, execution is scheduled for Tuesday night. He was tried in Virginia, which is known for hearing appeals rapidly.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains a front page article headlined “Detecting glimpses of humanity in D.C. sniper.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Vengeance is not thine: Witnessing an execution doesn’t always bring closure for the victims’ survivors.”

“Eight Missouri death-row inmates lose legal appeal”: The Kansas City Star has a news update that begins, “A group of Missouri death row inmates on Tuesday lost an appeal that had temporarily halted executions in the state.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a news update headlined “Appeals court rejects MO death row inmates’ appeal.”

And The Associated Press provides this coverage.

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

“Sotomayor poses in court for Latina magazine cover”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Appeals court agrees Vick can keep $16M in bonuses”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court is backing the judge who ruled against the NFL and let quarterback Michael Vick keep more than $16 million in roster bonuses from the Atlanta Falcons.”

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

“From 19th-Century View, Desegregation Is a Test”: In The New York Times, today’s installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column begins, “If there is a topic Justice Antonin Scalia does not relish discussing, it is how he would have voted in Brown v. Board of Education had he been on the Supreme Court when it was decided in 1954.”

Law professor John Yoo files Brief for Appellant in Ninth Circuit appeal challenging federal district court’s decision that he may be sued by Jose Padilla, who says he was tortured while being held for nearly four years as a suspected terrorist: I have posted online at this link the Brief for Appellant filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned Jose Padilla v. John Yoo. Miguel A. Estrada is lead counsel for Yoo on appeal.

My earlier coverage of the federal district court’s decision that is the subject of the appeal can be accessed here.