This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-bypasses-same-sex-marriage-cases-for-now/2014/10/02/1d2747b0-4a39-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court bypasses same-sex marriage cases, for now | Supreme Court bypasses same-sex marriage cases, for now |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The Supreme Court took a pass Thursday on its first chance to decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. | The Supreme Court took a pass Thursday on its first chance to decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. |
| The court is considering cases from Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin where federal appeals courts struck down state prohibitions on same-sex marriages. Both the winners and losers in those cases have asked the court to provide an answer to the question that would apply nationally. | The court is considering cases from Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin where federal appeals courts struck down state prohibitions on same-sex marriages. Both the winners and losers in those cases have asked the court to provide an answer to the question that would apply nationally. |
| But those who study the court and even the lawyers making the requests have said they expect it will take weeks or even months for the justices to decide which of the cases provides the best vehicle for a decision. The justices could also simply let the appeals court decisions stand, although that is considered unlikely, since the Supreme Court has stopped the marriages authorized by those rulings to take place. | But those who study the court and even the lawyers making the requests have said they expect it will take weeks or even months for the justices to decide which of the cases provides the best vehicle for a decision. The justices could also simply let the appeals court decisions stand, although that is considered unlikely, since the Supreme Court has stopped the marriages authorized by those rulings to take place. |
| So far, all three appeals courts that have ruled on the question have struck down the bans on same-sex marriage. Usually, the Supreme Court waits for a split among those circuits before taking a case. But more than 30 states, on both sides of the issue, have asked the nation’s highest court to resolve the issue. | So far, all three appeals courts that have ruled on the question have struck down the bans on same-sex marriage. Usually, the Supreme Court waits for a split among those circuits before taking a case. But more than 30 states, on both sides of the issue, have asked the nation’s highest court to resolve the issue. |
| At an appearance in Colorado Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked when the court would take up the same-sex marriage issue. According to the Associated Press, Scalia quipped, “I know when, but I’m not going to tell you.” When the crowd of about 1,500 laughed, Scalia added, “Soon! Soon!” | At an appearance in Colorado Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked when the court would take up the same-sex marriage issue. According to the Associated Press, Scalia quipped, “I know when, but I’m not going to tell you.” When the crowd of about 1,500 laughed, Scalia added, “Soon! Soon!” |
| The court did decide to hear the following cases, according to the Associated Press. The court will: | |
| • Consider whether states that elect judges can stop candidates from personally seeking campaign contributions. The justices agreed Thursday to hear an appeal from a Florida candidate who argues that the state’s ban violates her First Amendment free speech rights. | |
| The Florida Supreme Court ruled the ban promotes the state’s interest in preserving the integrity of the judiciary. The state court reprimanded Lanell Williams-Yulee for signing a fundraising letter seeking contributions for her campaign for county court judge. | |
| The Florida Bar is defending the ban but agrees the Supreme Court should take up the dispute because appeals courts have reached different positions. Thirty-nine states allow voters to elect judges, and 30 states have laws or rules barring candidates from personally soliciting contributions. | |
| • Decide whether private-sector health care providers can force a state to raise its Medicaid reimbursement rates to keep up with rising costs. The justices on Thursday agreed to hear an appeal from Idaho, which is trying to overturn a lower court decision that ordered the state to increase payments. | |
| A 2009 lawsuit claimed the state was unfairly keeping Medicaid reimbursement rates at 2006 levels, despite studies showing that the cost of providing care had gone up. A federal judge agreed, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The state says the Constitution doesn’t allow private parties to enforce federal Medicaid funding laws against states. Justices will hear arguments in the case next year. | |
| • Consider a challenge by Arizona Republicans to the state’s congressional districting map. Arizona voters created an independent redistricting commission in 2000 in an effort to take politics out of the process. But the GOP-led state legislature complained in a lawsuit that the Constitution exclusively gives power to draw maps for congressional districts to elected state lawmakers. A divided panel of federal judges dismissed the lawsuit, but justices said Thursday they will review the lower court ruling |