Does the SCOTUS cert. grant create a de facto moratorium?

As first reported in this post and as detailed more fully in this new AP story, today the Supreme Court agreed to hear "a Florida death row inmate's appeal that challenges that state's lethal injection method, just hours after the court dramatically stepped in to stop the man's execution."  And SCOTUSblog now has more details here on the schedule for Hill v. Crosby, docket 05-8794.

In addition to being surprised by this development, I am wondering whether the Court's grant of cert. could or should produce a de facto moratorium on lethal injection executions nationwide at least until the Supreme Court issues a ruling in Hill.  Though I could be wrong, I do not think there is anything especially unusual about Florida's lethal injection protocol, and thus I think the cert. grant at least raises questions for any state effort to now go forward with an execution using lethal injection. 

According to this page at the Death Penalty Information Center, roughly two dozen inmates are scheduled to be executed by eight different states before the Supreme Court is likely to resolve the Hill case this summer.  Will the Supreme Court (or lower courts) halt all these executions while the constitutionality of lethal injection is being considered in Hill?  (See updates below for further thoughts.)

Related prior posts:

• What's SCOTUS doing in the Hill case?
• Florida Supreme Court rejects challenge to lethal injection
• The legal attack on lethal injection
• Are four Justices ready to grant cert. on the constitutionality of lethal injection protocols?
• More on constitutional challenges to lethal injection
• Notable ruling on constitutionality of lethal injection
• Major Tennessee ruling upholds lethal injection protocol

UPDATE:  As Lyle Denniston clarifies in this post (which has the questions presented), the issues in the Hill case before the Court "appear to be procedural disputes, and thus the Court's answers are not likely to settle whether the executioin method Florida uses is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment."

Because Hill is about procedure, I suspect that other states might feel comfortable moving forward with lethal injections while Hill is being considered.  And yet, why would the Court use this case to address these procedural issues unless it thought there is some plausible merit to the underlying claims?

ANOTHER UPDATE:  The more I think about the grant in Hill, the more confused I am.  Formally, the case really does not address the constitutionality of lethal injection protocols, so perhaps states can and should feel entirely comfortable continuing with their execution plans.  But the grant in Hill at least suggests that death row defendants might be allowed another bite (via a 1983 claim) at the Eighth Amendment apple even after exhausting their habeas rights.  And every new constitutional bite creates a new layer of litigation in capital cases.  Is that what the Justices hoped to achieve via this grant in Hill?