“For Justices, Death Penalty Cases Are Personal”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Justices appear skeptical at reversal of Wichita murderers’ death sentences”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court hears new death penalty arguments.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Obsesses Over Death Again In ‘Wichita Massacre’ Cases; For two hours, the justices grappled with the process of death sentencing.”

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Justices Deeply Divided Over Death Penalty In New Term.”

“Cuozzo Takes IPR Challenge to the Supreme Court”: Dennis Crouch has this post today at the “Patently-O” blog.

You can view the petition for writ of certiorari filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“The rule of necessity thus permits a district judge to hear a case in which he is named as a defendant where a litigant sues all the judges of the district.” Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea issued this interesting opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The opinion discusses both the history and the modern day use of the rule of necessity as applied to judicial recusals.

“Craig’s Attorney Cites Roll Call Report in Appeals Court Case”: Todd Ruger of Roll Call has this report.

“Justices Hear Cases on Death Penalty, Without the Bitterness of June”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court defends contested death penalty verdicts in Kansas.”

And Michael Doyle of McClatchy reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with legal aftermath of ‘Wichita Massacre.’”

“High court weighs 3 death sentences in Kansas cases”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court tackles ‘Wichita Massacre’ death penalty case.”

And Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “Pondering an issue that’s not at stake — or is it?”

“Appeals court throws out Texas flag-desecration law”: Chuck Lindell of The American-Statesman has this news update.

Today’s 6-to-3 ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — that state’s highest court in criminal cases — consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions (here and here).

“U.S. Supreme Court skeptical of Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, Gleason cases; AG Schmidt argued juries understood their role in death sentences”: Justin Wingerter of The Topeka Capital-Journal has this news update.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kansas v. Gleason, No. 14-452.

And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Kansas v. Carr, No. 14-449.

“Judicial Internet Research: Does the First SCOTUS Decision of OT 2015 Bode Ill for Dr. Posner?” Eric G. Pearson had this interesting post yesterday at the “Wisconsin Appellate Law” blog.

“Supreme Court tells lawyers: Stand in line yourselves; You can’t pay others to hold a spot.” Robert Barnes has this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

“How the Supremes Rule on Global Law: Justice Stephen Breyer’s new book thoughtfully discusses how the Court should reconcile foreign and domestic legal issues; But it may be too little too late.” Law professor David Fontana has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

“Alabama probate judge: Let federal government issue same-sex marriage licenses.” Kent Faulk of The Birmingham News has this report.