As in the Seventh Circuit, other lower courts have been skeptical of prison decisions that deny inmates the right to marry due to visitation concerns. See Aliviado v. Kimoto, No. CIV. 12-00259 SOM, 2012 WL 3202222, at *2-4 (D. Haw. Aug. 2, 2012.) (granting a preliminary injunction on the merits as allowing plaintiffs to get married would do nothing to increase the likelihood of security risks identified by the prison); see also Eads v. Tennessee, No. 1:18-CV-00042, 2018 WL 4283030, at *13 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 7, 2018) (finding that where plaintiff's placement in the SHU would prevent him from marrying his fiancé indefinitely, the plaintiff stated a colorable due process right to marry claim sufficient to survive an initial screening and "the legitimacy and sufficiency of the cited security concerns must be tested by the adversarial process"); Zastrow v. Pollard, No. 11-C-371, 2013 WL 1288040, at *6 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 26, 2013) (denying motion for summary judgment where "it is impossible to determine whether the outright denial of [plaintiff's] marriage request was an exaggerated response by prison officials or a decision reasonably justified by legitimate penological concerns."); Post v. Mohr, No. 1:11 CV 1533, 2012 WL 76894, at *