Did you miss your Supreme Court news this week? Let our Weekly Roundup help. (To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow ISCOTUS on Twitter.)

An analysis of Comptroller v. Wynne argues against regarding the justices—and their decisions—in purely ideological terms.

“Established by the state”—drafters of the Affordable Care Act now assert that these four words, used by opponents to challenge the law at the Supreme Court, were not meant to make it into the bill.

On Tuesday, the Court agreed to hear a black Georgia inmate’s claim that “an explicit reliance on race” was used by his prosecutors to select an all-white jury to serve in his trial.

Also on Tuesday, the Court decided to take up a Texas redistricting case regarding the “one person, one vote” doctrine, examining whether the entire population or only those who are eligible to vote should be counted when drawing electoral districts.

The Justice Department stated this week that it would not ask the Supreme Court for permission to go ahead with President Obama’s ambitious immigration policy reforms, leaving the legal dispute to the lower courts.

Hillary Clinton declared that any of her potential nominations to the Supreme Court would have to be committed to overturning the Court’s decision in Citizens United. Linda Greenhouse looks at this “litmus test” and examines how it might affect the election.

The Chicago Tribune outlines the major cases still to be decided at the Court.