Coverage of yesterday's US Supreme Court arguments in Panetti mental illness case:  Todd Gillman has this coverage for the Dallas Morning News, entitled "Court weighs degree of sanity for death."  Patty Reinhert has this article in the Houston Chronicle, entitled "Supreme Court wrestles with insanity question."  Tara Copp and Gerry Smith have this article in the Houston Chronicle, entitled "Supreme Court hears Texas death penalty case; Justices to decide whether inmate is too mentally ill to execute."  (Earlier coverage here and here.)

Houston Chronicle excerpt:
...Panetti's lawyer, Gregory Wiercioch of the Texas Defender Service, argued that the standard should be whether an inmate "rationally understands" he is to be executed and why. Panetti does not, he said.

But the justices, interrupting Wiercioch almost immediately after he began his argument, focused many of their questions on whether the insanity question should even be answered in this case. They asked whether federal laws limiting death penalty appeals should have prevented Panetti from challenging his execution in federal court once a Texas court found him competent to be put to death.

"What do you do with the language in the statute?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, a death penalty supporter. "After all, Congress is entitled to place limits upon our ability to review state court judgments."

The justices seemed divided along liberal-conservative lines. Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected to provide the decisive vote if the decision is closely contested.

On the courthouse steps following the argument, Cruz said Panetti's case is complicated because everyone agrees he is mentally ill. Where the state and Panetti's lawyers differ, he said, is that the state believes the inmate is exaggerating his illness to escape punishment.

But he said it's possible the court won't answer that question or provide any further guidance on what it believes is the definition of insanity.

It's clear, he said, that the court "is wrestling with procedural issues" as well as the underlying question on insanity.

A decision in the case is expected by July.

Transcript of yesterday's arguments is here (65-page pdf).  Audio of arguments may be available later on the OYEZ website here