The Supreme Court today heard arguments challenging whether the state of Texas can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one, the Times News reports. The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans sued over the state’s decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge to Wisconsin’s voter identification law, the New York Times reports. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case was a surprise, as the court last year temporarily blocked the law for the November election, and voters were not required to show photo identifications in order to vote. 

The lawyers representing the couples in the four historic same-sex marriage cases slotted for arguments on April 28 asked the Supreme Court yesterday to divide the arguments on their side in the two questions posed by the high court: whether the 14th Amendment requires states to license marriages between persons of the same sex and whether the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize valid same-sex marriages performed out of state. The justices have ordered 90 minutes of argument on the first question and 60 minutes for the second, the National Law Journal reports.

Writing about “Clones on the Court,” Yale constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar says it’s a mistake that the Supreme Court today has justices with nearly identical resumes. According to Amar, the Supreme Court works best when the justices can bring different perspectives on difficult legal issues. None of the current justices has ever served in the Cabinet or been elected to any prominent legislative or executive city, state or federal position. More than 30 organizations last year wrote a letter urging senators to consider professional diversity when considering judicial candidates. Gavel Grab has more.

The Supreme Court issued two dissent-free decisions Monday, a triumph for the ideal of a court that focuses on law rather than politics, Bloomberg News reports. Despite the court’s anticipated divisions over Obamacare and same-sex marriage, columnist Cass Sunstein writes that the justices’ 9-0 decision shows they can agree on “central legal questions” without political influence. The Columbia Daily Herald has more.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the blockbuster case on same-sex marriage on April 28, the Wall Street Journal law blog reports. The high court will hear two and one half hours of argument on cases originating from Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan. The justices will be considering whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide.

The Supreme Court was sharply divided today in the latest challenge to President Barack Obama's health insurance overhaul, this time over the tax subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of Americans. The justices are trying to determine whether the law makes people in all 50 states eligible for federal tax subsidies to cut the cost of insurance premiums, or if it limits tax credits to people who live in states that created their own health insurance marketplaces. According to the Associated Press, the same liberal-conservative divide that characterized earlier cases was evident in the nearly 90 minutes of back-and-forth questioning. A decision is expected by late June.

State licensing boards composed of market participants do not enjoy automatic immunity from antitrust laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week. The decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission affirms the Fourth Circuit and deals a setback to an increasingly common form of regulation, SCOTUSblog reports. In their dissent, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas argued that the board should get antitrust immunity because North Carolina had designated it a state agency.

Prosecutors yesterday added two additional misdemeanor charges against demonstrators who made a rare disruption inside the U.S. Supreme Court last month. The disruptions -- which included standing in succession inside the court and shouting protests against the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance ruling -- made news not only because it was rare but because the group managed to take videos of the incident and post them on their website, despite the fact that the Supreme Court does not allow cameras inside the courtroom. The Greeneville Sun has more from the Associated Press.

Three same-sex Tennessee couples today filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the state’s same-sex marriage ban, Knoxnews reports. The brief argues that the Supreme Court “should not permit any state to deprive another generation of lesbian and gay persons of the opportunity to participate fully in marriage.” Supreme Court justices last month agreed to hear gay marriage appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.