WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted new cases about congressional redistricting, judicial candidates asking for campaign donations and religious discrimination. But the justices took no action on requests that they decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
The court waded through hundreds of petitions that have accumulated during their summer break, and accepted 11 new cases.
Among the pile were 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.
There is still plenty of time for the court to take up the question and rule on the issue during the new term that begins 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.
If the court takes up the question, it has to then decide which of the cases provides the best vehicle for a decision.
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 justices could also let the appeals court decisions stand, although that is considered unlikely. The Supreme Court has not allowed marriages authorized by those rulings to take place, indicating justices want to have a say in the matter.
The court met in private this week to sort through cases that had stacked up this summer. Though they accepted some cases, it won’t be known until next week which of the cases they rejected and which they will reconsider at a later date.
Among the cases that got a green light Thursday was one that could decide how candidates running for election as judges may conduct their campaigns. A case from Florida asks whether such candidates may be forbidden from personally asking for campaign contributions.
There are 39 states that allow at least some judges to be elected, and 30 of them have laws or rules banning contribution requests.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that 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.
In another case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued retailer Abercrombie & Fitch after it refused to hire Samantha Elauf at a Tulsa, Okla., store in 2008 because her Muslim hijab conflicted with the company’s “look policy.”
A federal judge initially sided with the EEOC, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying Elauf never directly informed her interviewer that she needed a religious accommodation, even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview.
Government lawyers say the appeals court ruling undercuts legal protections for religious practices because it unfairly places the entire the burden to raise the issue with job applicants who often aren’t aware of a potential conflict.
Abercrombie, which could face negative publicity in the case, has pressed on with its defense, saying it was Elauf’s obligation to explain any special needs based on her religion.
The housing discrimination case is the third time in recent years that the Supreme Court has considered a challenge to the legal theory known as disparate impact. The strategy uses statistics to show that certain policies can harm racial minorities even when there is no intent to discriminate.
The case involves a Texas fair housing group that claims the state’s system for distributing low-income housing tax credits discriminates against racial minorities by perpetuating segregated neighborhoods.
A federal appeals court agreed that the group could use statistics to show the state was approving more low-income housing in black neighborhoods than in white areas.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Some new cases
