Coverage and commentary continue to focus on the upcoming oral arguments in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.  At this blog, Lyle Denniston has the first of a four-part series previewing the oral arguments; the first post looks at the briefs filed by the same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee challenging those states’ laws.  In USA Today, Richard Wolf profiles Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Kentucky case, recounting how a “mild-mannered real estate broker and art collector . . . bec[a]me the poster child for the gay rights movement’s nationwide effort to legalize same-sex marriage.”  Relatedly, Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade reports that a group opposing same-sex marriage has asked the Court to review a decision by the Ninth Circuit invalidating Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage. 


  • At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley discusses the Court’s recent opinion in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, holding that Medicaid providers do not have a cause of action to challenge a state’s reimbursement rates; he argues that even if the “legal dispute at the core of” the decision “is arcane . . . the real-world consequences are not. After Armstrong, it’ll be easier for states to slash their Medicaid payment rates, even where the cuts make it difficult or impossible for Medicaid beneficiaries to find a doctor.”
  • In an op-ed for MSNBC, Gabe Roth discusses an “erosion of confidence” in the Court and suggests some possibilities – including allowing “broadcast technology” in the courtroom – to fix it.

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]


Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 13, 2015, 6:30 AM),