WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday accepted 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 and accepted 11 new cases.
In Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Wisconsin, federal appeals courts have struck down state bans on same-sex marriages. Both the winners and losers have asked the high court to provide an answer to the question that would apply nationally. There is still time for the court to take up the question during the new term that begins Monday and ends next June.
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 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.
One case that got a green light could decide how candidates seeking election as judges may conduct their campaigns. A Florida case asks whether they can be forbidden from personally seeking contributions.
There are 39 states that allow at least some of their judges to be elected, and 30 of them ban 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, fined for signing a fund-raising letter, said the ban violates her free speech rights.
The Florida Bar, which brought the action against Williams-Yulee, agreed the Supreme Court should take the case to clarify whether the First Amendment protects candidates against such restrictions.
Lower courts are split on the question.
The justices will also consider whether voters can take away from a legislature the right to draw congressional districts.
Arizona voters gave the job to an independent commission in 2000, an attempt to remove politics from the redistricting process; California has a similar commission. But the state’s Republican-led Legislature objected to the 2012 redistricting, and contends the Constitution does not give voters the right to exclude elected officials from the process.
The justices will also decide if Abercrombie & Fitch violated antidiscrimination laws when it denied a job to a Muslim 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 took up the case of Samantha Elauf, who was denied a job in a mall in Tulsa, Okla. Elauf, then 17, had worn a headscarf, or hajib, since she was 13.
When she interviewed for the job, she scored high enough on the company’s ratings to qualify for a position, and her interviewer said later that she understood Elauf wore the hajib for religious reasons. But after conferring with a superior, they marked down Elauf’s score on appearance.
A judge ruled in her favor. But the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the decision, saying it was up to Elauf to ask for a religious accommodation, and she had not done so.