“States ask judge not to lift stay in immigration lawsuit”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “States want immigration policy kept on hold.”

You can access at this link the states’ answer opposition to the federal government’s motion seeking a stay pending appeal.

“Upholding Internet Sales Tax Law, a Justice Invites a New Case”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court wades into dispute over online retailers and state taxes.”

The Denver Post reports that “Supreme Court kicks Colorado online tax case to federal court.”

And The Seattle Times reports that “Supreme Court justice’s view could open revisitation of Web sales tax ”

“Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review legality of Gov. Wolf’s death penalty moratorium”: The Associated Press has this report.

“King v. Burwell: my prediction.” Law professor Eric Posner has a post today at his blog that begins, “Okay, I’ll say it. I predict that the plaintiffs will win by a vote of 5 to 4.”

“Ga. postpones executions so execution drugs can be analyzed”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report, along with an article headlined “Why we know so little about Georgia’s execution protocol.”

And in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, Alan Blinder will have an article headlined “Georgia Postpones 2 Executions, Citing ‘Cloudy’ Drug.”

“Eight Men and 10 Women Are Selected as Jurors in Boston Marathon Trial”: Katharine Q. Seelye will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

And Reuters reports that “All-white jury will hear Boston Marathon bombing trial.” Earlier, on Sunday, Reuters had an article headlined “Life and death at the heart of Boston bombing trial.”

“Have the practical effects of a plaintiffs’ victory in King been exaggerated? (And does it matter?)” Jonathan H. Adler has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

And today at “Dorf on Law,” Eric Segall has a post titled “Text All The Way Down: Why the Government Should Prevail in King v. Burwell.”

“Stark contrast: The 2 attorneys arguing the Obamacare case; Michael Carvin will argue for plaintiffs and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. will speak for the government.” Sarah Wheaton of Politico.com has this report.

And to think, it feels like only yesterday that I was in The Heritage Foundation’s green room with them both.

“In Health Law Case, Plaintiffs Dislike Rules on Purchases and Penalties”: In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, Robert Pear will have an article that begins, “People sometimes wonder why David M. King would fight health insurance subsidies all the way to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear his case on Wednesday. Even his sister is puzzled.”

Also in Wednesday’s newspaper, Michael D. Shear will have an article headlined “White House Plans No Rescue If Court Guts Health Care Law.”

“Alabama Supreme Court orders halt to same-sex marriages”: Kyle Whitmire of AL.com has this report.

The Montgomery Advertiser has a news update headlined “Ala. Supreme Court halts same-sex marriages.”

The Associated Press reports that “Alabama Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Criticizing Justices, state court bars same-sex marriages.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Alabama at this link.

“Two sides gearing up for another Supreme Court battle over health care”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “To Kill a Health-Care Law: Attorney Michael Carvin, arguing against Affordable Care Act, says he is inspired by Atticus Finch.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “What the Supreme Court Challenge Means for the Health-Care Law; Arguments to begin Wednesday in case that could invalidate health-insurance subsidies in up to 37 states.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Noam N. Levey of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “If Supreme Court rules against Obamacare, states have few options.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court set to hear second major Obamacare challenge.”

The Hill reports that “As ObamaCare case nears, calls for cameras in high court grow.”

And online at Slate, Jamelle Bouie has an essay titled “The GOP’s Sick Maneuvers: If the Supreme Court throws Obamacare into chaos, Republicans are content to just watch it fail.”

“Supreme Court allows challenge to Colorado Internet tax law”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Amazon’s Short-Lived Win at Supreme Court.”

“Jury selected in Tsarnaev trial”: Patricia Wen and Milton J. Valencia of The Boston Globe have this news update.

Laurel J. Sweet of The Boston Herald reports that “Jury chosen in Tsarnaev Marathon bombing trial.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Jury seated in trial of Boston Marathon bombing suspect.”

“Obamacare case: All eyes on 2 justices; The keys to the case are expected to be John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.” Jennifer Haberkorn and Josh Gerstein of Politico.com have this report.

“How the Supreme Court Case Could Affect the Health Law; High Court to interpret meaning of subsidy language in latest Affordable Care Act case”: Brent Kendall has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, No. 13-1032. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined in full and Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Court Skeptical of Arizona Plan for Less-Partisan Congressional Redistricting”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court questions Arizona redistricting commission.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court skeptical of citizen panels that redraw congressional districts.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Court may stop commissions from drawing Congress’ lines.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Skeptical of Arizona Initiative on Congressional Districting; Majority of justices expressed concern that approach violated Constitution’s elections clause.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “State redistricting is under scrutiny at Supreme Court.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court throws doubt on one state’s bid to end gerrymandering.”

The Arizona Republic reports that “Supreme Court tough on both sides in Arizona redistricting case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem skeptical of independent electoral map boards.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices raise doubts about Arizona redistricting commission.”

Scott Bland of National Journal reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Overturning Dozens of Congressional Districts; The fate of a favorite anti-gerrymandering tool sat before the high court Monday, and the panel’s conservative justices seemed wholly unimpressed.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Seems Divided Over Independent Redistricting Commissions.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Literalism vs. the power of the people.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, No. 13-1314.