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 3 Version 4
Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases, for now Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases, for now
(about 1 hour later)
The Supreme Court took no action Thursday on requests that it decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.The Supreme Court took no action Thursday on requests that it decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
The court accepted 11 new cases but gave no indication about petitions from Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, where federal appeals courts have struck down state bans 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 accepted 11 new cases but gave no indication about petitions from Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, where federal appeals courts have struck down state bans 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.
There is still plenty of time for the court to act on the question and rule on the issue during the new term that begins on Monday and will end next June. There is still plenty of time for the court to act on the question and rule on the issue during the new term that begins on Monday and will end next June. Those who study the court and even the lawyers making the requests have said they expect it could be weeks or months before the justices decide whether to hear the issue, although most think it almost impossible for the court to pass up.
Those who study the court and even the lawyers making the requests have said they expect it could be weeks or months before the justices decide whether to hear the issue, although most think it almost impossible for the court to pass up the issue. If the court takes up the question, it has to then decide which of the cases provides the best vehicle for a decision.
If the court takes up the issue, it has to then 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.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.
The court did decide to hear the following cases, according to the Associated Press. The court will: The court returned earlier this week to consider nearly 2,000 petitions that had accumulated during the justices’ summer break. It will not be known until next week which of the cases they rejected and which they will reconsider at a later date, but they did accept new cases that raise important questions involving election law and discrimination.
• 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. Among other cases, the court agreed:
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. • To consider whether judges running for election can be banned from personally asking for campaign contributions. There are 39 states that allow at least some of their judges to be elected, and 30 of them have laws or rules banning contribution requests.
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. The court accepted a case from Florida, where the state supreme court said such laws are justified to protect the reputation of the judiciary as impartial. But candidate Lanell Williams-Yulee, who was reprimanded and fined for signing a fundraising letter, said the ban violates her free speech rights.
• 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. Lower courts across the country have split on whether such bans are constitutional.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit 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. • To rule on whether voters can take away from the legislature the right to draw congressional districts. Arizona voters gave the job to an independent commission in 2000 in an attempt to remove politics from the redistricting process. But the state’s Republican-led legislature contends that the Constitution gives the power to draw congressional districts exclusively to elected lawmakers.
• 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 • To decide whether retailer Abercrombie & Fitch violated antidiscrimination laws when it denied a job to a Muslim applicant because her headscarf conflicted with the company’s dress code, described at the time as “classic East Coast collegiate style.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission acted on behalf of Samantha Elauf, who was denied a job at the chain’s Tulsa, Okla., store, and a judge ruled in her favor. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed, saying Elauf never asked for a religious accommodation.