Supreme Court to mull thorny problems

And conspicuously absent from the docket, at least for now, are any of the several pending same-sex marriage cases many legal experts predict the justices must eventually will deal with.

Yet with a handful of noteworthy cases, some potential sleepers and the possibility that the gay-marriage issue could slip onto the schedule later, the upcoming eight-month term is still poised to have broad-reaching implications.

Here’s what’s in store:

Gay marriage

The Supreme Court last week decided not to move on any of the several appeals asking it to take up the issue of same-sex marriage. But the justices could reconsider as early as Friday when they meet for a closed-door conference.

At issue is how employers must deal with laws that require them to make allowances for a worker’s religious practices, as long as doing so doesn’t cause the business excessive hardship.

Since the Supreme Court last year ruled the federal government cannot deny benefits to same-sex couples, six additional states have legalized gay marriage and 14 more have overturned bans. All of those rulings have been put on hold during the appeals process, leaving 31 bans still in place.

Both sides are eager for the high court to revisit the issue. Gay-marriage opponents say they expect the conservative-leaning bench this time to rule in their favor, while supporters say legal momentum on their side.

A ruling in favor of gay-marriage would go a long way toward effectively ending the legal debate.

If the court agrees to hear one or more of the cases, oral arguments would begin early next year, followed by a ruling before the court adjourns in late June.

Religious freedom

Justices will consider whether retailer Abercrombie & Fitch violated a woman’s religious rights for refusing to hire her because she wore a Muslim headscarf.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on behalf of Samantha Elauf, contending she wasn’t hired at a Tulsa, Okla., store in 2008 because her hijab violated the company’s dress code. A federal judge initially sided with the agency.

But an appeals court last year backed the company on the grounds Elauf didn’t say she needed a religious accommodation while applying for a job.

Abercrombie & Fitch, which has faced other discrimination lawsuits in the past, later changed its dress rules.

In another religious freedom case, the court will review an Arkansas prisoner’s complaint that the prison won’t let him grow out his beard in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.

Inmate Gregory Holt says he should be allowed to grow a half-inch beard, arguing that the prison’s grooming policy violated his religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Prison officials say the policy is necessary to order to stop inmates from hiding weapons and other contraband inside long beards.

Holt, who is serving a life sentence for burglary and domestic battery, has been allowed to grow out his beard while the case is on appeal.

Redistricting

The Supreme Court has taken up a challenge by Arizona Republicans to a voter-approved plan that stripped state lawmakers of their role in drawing congressional districts.

Arizona voters created an independent redistricting commission in 2000 in a move designed to take politics out of the process. But the GOP-led state legislature sued, saying that commission is unlawful because the U.S. Constitution gives elected state lawmakers the exclusive authority to draw maps for congressional districts.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. district court in Arizona ruled in favor of the commission earlier this year.

The high court’s decision could effect how congressional districts are redrawn in other states.

Campaign contributions to elected judges

The high court will address a growing debate regarding whether states that elect judges can prohibit judicial candidates from directly seeking campaign contributions.

The case is poised to affect judicial races nationwide, as 30 of the 39 states that allow voters to elect judges have laws or rules barring candidates from personally seeking contributions.

The dispute centers on an appeal from a Florida judicial candidate who argues the state’s ban on personal solicitation of campaign funds violates her First Amendment free speech rights.

The Florida Supreme Court has upheld the ban on the grounds such conduct raises an appearance of impropriety and may lead the public to question a judge’s impartiality.

But plaintiff Lanell Williams-Yulee contends the law stifles political speech and is essentially meaningless anyway because it allows a candidate’s campaign committee to solicit contributions.

Medicaid

The issue of whether private sector health care providers can force a state to raise its Medicaid reimbursement rates to keep up with rising cost also is on the docket.

The case centers on a 2009 lawsuit that argued the state of Idaho had unfairly held Medicaid reimbursement rates at 2006 levels. A federal judge and an appeals court sided with the lawsuit, ordering the state to increase payments. The state then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

The increased reimbursements cost the state an additional $12 million in 2013.

Wire reports contributed to this article.