Yesterday Indiana and Wisconsin both filed petitions asking the Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit striking down their respective bans on same-sex marriage. Lyle covered the filings for this blog; other coverage comes from Lauren Raab of the Los Angeles Times and Tim Evans of the Indianapolis Star (via USA Today).


  • At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern discusses the Court’s use of facts in its opinions, and he suggests that “Justices already set on a particular ruling may contort facts—outside data, or even facts about the case itself—to support their judgments.”
  • At Business Insider, Erin Fuchs previews next month’s argument in Holt v. Hobbs, in which the Justices will consider whether an Arkansas prison policy that generally prohibits inmates from growing a beard violates the religious rights of a Muslim prisoner who believes that his religion requires him to grow a beard.
  • In The National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief, Anthony Franze and R. Reeves Anderson analyze the Court’s amicus brief docket and conclude that “amici provide information, perspectives and arguments that the court finds helpful to its decision-making process — even if the justices don’t always agree with their ‘friends.’”

A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at]

In association with Bloomberg Law