Update: Commenters over at SCOTUSblog suggest that Justice Stevens' dissent in Landrigan was originally the majority opinion, but Justice Kennedy switched over.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some press coverage on Schriro v. Landrigan, previously discussed here. First, Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers notes the case as "the latest illustration of the conflicted relationship between the Supreme Court and the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals." David Savage of the L.A. Times notes that angle as well as the close division on the Supreme Court and that Justice Kennedy sided with one group of four in the Texas cases and the other group of four in this case. Robert Barnes in the Washington Post writes, "The court's docket this term is heavy with death penalty cases, and the decisions have shown a court starkly divided on the issue."

James Vicini at Reuters emphasizes Landrigan's rejection of mitigation. Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times looks at Justice Alito's role. She notes that he wrote the Third Circuit decision in Rompilla v. Beard, in which his predecessor Justice O'Connor cast the fifth vote to reverse. It is true, as she says, that Justice O'Connor was the fifth vote to reverse in several capital cases involving ineffective assistance claims, but this case was easier than the others. Whereas Rompilla was merely unhelpful to counsel's efforts to find mitigating evidence, Landrigan actively opposed introduction of any mitigation. Justice O'Connor might very well have joined with yesterday's majority if she were still on the Court.

Michael Kiefer of the Arizona Republic notes that the decision puts Landrigan on Arizona's "execution short list," which also includes "volunteer" Robert Comer and Ronald Williams, presently in a West Virginia prison for two other murders.