“When All Nine Justices Agree”: Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Public notice not required for revising interpretive rules — Supreme Court”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Supreme Court’s Big Mistake in a Small Case.”

“Supreme Court Sides With Amtrak, With Some Distaste”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says Amtrak is more like a public entity than a private firm.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Leaves Amtrak Authority Unsettled; In another ruling Monday, the Court made it easier for mortgage-loan officers to seek overtime pay.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Deciding — without deciding finally.”

“Quicken says already pays OT, so ruling has no impact”: The Detroit Free Press has this report.

“Three States Would Be Hardest Hit If Supreme Court Upends Health-Law Subsidies; Florida, North Carolina and Texas have most consumers eligible for tax credit through federal website HealthCare.gov”: Stephanie Armour will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

And Andrew M. Duehren of The Harvard Crimson recently had an article headlined “Supreme Court Will Likely Uphold Affordable Care Act, Law Profs Say.”

“Supreme Court to Review Florida’s Capital Punishment System; Case asks whether state too easily allows juries to recommend the execution of criminals”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court to review Florida case of death penalty and intellectual disability.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court to hear case challenging Florida’s capital punishment rules.”

News Service of Florida reports that “Florida death-row case sparks U.S. Supreme Court review.”

The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court To Review How Florida Doles Out The Death Penalty.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on jury role in death sentencing.”

“State Supreme Court justices deny tipping HOA conspirator to FBI raids”: The Las Vegas Review-Journal has this report.

“12 candidates file for Pa. Supreme Court seats”: Amy Worden of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.

Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reports that “12 candidates file to run for state Supreme Court seats.”

And The Associated Press reports that “3 openings on Pennsylvania Supreme Court attract 12 candidates as contests heat up.”

“Elusive Justice in Wisconsin”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “If the toxic effects of outsize spending in judicial elections were not already evident, the fiasco playing out in the Wisconsin Supreme Court should erase any doubt.”

And in related news coverage, last week Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had an article headlined “State high court may hold John Doe arguments in secret.”

“Attorneys struggle to keep up with Missouri’s execution pace”: Tony Rizzo of The Kansas City Star has this report.

“Gissendaner cites ‘mortal fear’ in asking court to stop execution”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.

“Obamacare’s Latest Test: Partisan Hackery.” Tom Tomorrow has this cartoon online at The Nation.

Access online the contents of the March 2015 issue of the Harvard Law Review: Via this link.

“Court: Executioner IDs not relevant, not releasable.” Stacey Barchenger of The Tennessean has an article that begins, “Tennessee does not have to release the names of executioners, pharmacists or medical staff involved in executions, the state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Tennessee Supreme Court: State does not have to release names of execution team members.”

Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Tennessee consists of a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in the judgment.

“Utah to bring back firing squad if lethal injections unavailable”: Reuters has this report.

“Kathleen Kane to appear before Pa. Supreme Court, but a resolution may be many months away”: Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.

And in Monday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis had an article headlined “Pa. Supreme Court to take up Kane’s challenge to special prosecutor.”

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania will hear oral argument in the case tomorrow.

“U.S. judge allows Ten Commandments to remain at Oklahoma Capitol”: Reuters has this report.

“Restrepo nomination: the wait for a hearing goes on.” Matthew Stiegler has this post today at his “CA3blog.”

“Supreme Court revives Notre Dame’s challenge to contraceptive policy”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

And Nina Totenberg of NPR reports that “Supreme Court Sends Birth Control Case Back To Appeals Court.”

“Judge Blocking Plan for Immigrants Is Known as Fair in Texas”: Julia Preston will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Court to hear sabotage appeal of 85-year-old nun, activists”: The Associated Press has this report on a case scheduled for oral argument tomorrow in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Apple asks U.S. appeals court to disqualify antitrust monitor”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

“Can an Attorney Blame the Client for a Bad Appellate Brief?” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appears in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can freely access the full text via Google.