This morning the Court heard oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which it is considering whether states must allow same-sex marriages or recognize such marriages when they take place in another state. Lyle Denniston covered the arguments for this blog, Amy Howe explained the argument in Plain English, and Mark Walsh provided a “view from the Courtroom.”
Other early coverage of the arguments comes from Pete Williams at NBC News, Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed, Ariane de Vogue, Pamela Brown, and Jeremy Diamond at CNN, Lydia Wheeler at The Hill, Sam Baker at National Journal, Adam Liptak at The New York Times, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Richard Wolf and Brad Heath at USA Today, Laura Meckler, Brent Kendall, and Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal, Robert Barnes and Fred Barbash at The Washington Post, Greg Stohr and Mark Drajem at Bloomberg Politics, Daniel Wilson at Law360, David G. Savage and Timothy M. Phelps at Los Angeles Times, Susan Ferrechio at Washington Examiner, Ryan J. Reilly and Jennifer Bendery at Huffington Post, David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo, Josh Gerstein at Politico, Jaclyn Belczyk at JURIST, and Bill Chappell at NPR.
Early commentary on the arguments comes from ACSlaw, which has posts from Samuel A. Marcosson and Amy Bergquist. At The New York Times, Joseph Landau explores why Chief Justice Roberts might support same-sex marriage. At the New York University Law Review Online, Ryan H. Nelson discusses what he calls the “third nail” in the “proceed with caution” argument against same-sex marriage. Other early commentary comes from Ilya Shapiro at Cato at Liberty, Daniel Fisher at Forbes, Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, German Lopez at Vox, and Garrett Epps at The Atlantic.