Here are summaries of five of the biggest cases awaiting rulings by the Supreme Court . Decisions will be released between now and the end of June.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

AT ISSUE: A challenge to the school's race-conscious admissions policies.

THE CASE: Abigail Fisher individually sued the flagship state university after her college application was rejected in 2008 when she was a high school senior in Sugar Land, Texas.

THE ARGUMENTS: Fisher claims she was turned away in part because she is white, despite being more qualified than some minority applicants. The school defends its policy of considering race as one of many factors -- such as test scores, community service, leadership and work experience -- to ensure a diverse campus.

THE OUTCOME: It appears the conservative majority has the votes to strike down the school's policy in some form, and it's a good bet Justice Anthony Kennedy is writing the opinion. His moderate-conservative outlook could mean a limited ruling: striking down this university's efforts but allowing affirmative action to continue in some circumstances.

THE IMPACT: The appeal raises anew thorny, unresolved questions over race and remedies. Justice Elena Kagan did not hear this case because she had dealt with the issue while she was President Barack Obama's solicitor general. That would make a 4-4 tie possible, meaning the university would prevail, but no important precedent would be established. The high court will revisit the issue this fall in a separate appeal on whether Michigan's voter-approved ban on affirmative action is constitutional.

Photos: Photos: Players in Proposition 8 case Photos: Photos: Players in Proposition 8 case Players in the same sex marriage cases – Charles Cooper is the lead attorney for proponents of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the issue of same-sex marriage in two momentous cases on Tuesday, March 26, and Wednesday, March 27. In the California one, the court will be asked to decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry despite the passage of a state referendum against it. In the other, the parties will argue over the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the recognition of same-sex marriages nationwide and bars married gay and lesbian couples from receiving federal benefits. Hide Caption 1 of 5 Photos: Photos: Players in Proposition 8 case Players in the same sex marriage cases – Theodore Olson is an attorney for opponents of California's Proposition 8, a referendum that revoked the right of same-sex couples to wed after the state's high court previously allowed it. Hide Caption 2 of 5 Photos: Photos: Players in Proposition 8 case Players in the same sex marriage cases – U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. will briefly argue on behalf of the Obama administration in opposition to Proposition 8. The administration has filed a brief with the high court formally expressing its support for same-sex marriage in California Hide Caption 3 of 5 Photos: Photos: Players in Proposition 8 case Players in the same sex marriage cases – Paul Katami, left, and Jeff Zarrillo of Burbank, California, are plaintiffs in the monumental fight that tests the generations-old concept of marriage. There are an estimated 120,000 legally married same-sex couples in the United States. Hide Caption 4 of 5 Photos: Photos: Players in Proposition 8 case Players in the same sex marriage cases – The other plaintiffs in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case are Kris Perry, right, and Sandy Stier of Berkeley, California. The parents of four boys, the couple equate their cause to the civil rights struggles of a half-century ago. Hide Caption 5 of 5

Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Edith Windsor is leading the campaign to erase the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on her suit, which she filed after she had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes after her female partner died because the federal government didn't recognize their marriage. Hide Caption 1 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Windsor, 83, arrives at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 27, in Washington. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, Petitioner v. United States, the second case about same-sex marriage this week. Hide Caption 2 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Windsor lost her spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, in 2009. They had been together for 40 years. Hide Caption 3 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Spyer, left, and Windsor met in 1965 at a restaurant in New York's Greenwich Village. At the time, Windsor was working as a programmer for IBM, and Spyer was a psychologist. Hide Caption 4 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Spyer proposed to Windsor in 1967 with a round diamond pin. However, a legal union seemed out of the question. Hide Caption 5 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – A year after their wedding, Windsor and Spyer, pictured, purchased a house together in Southampton, according to an NYU Alumni Magazine story. Hide Caption 6 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – After Spyer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Windsor halted her work as a gay rights activist to care for her partner. Hide Caption 7 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Spyer proposed to Windsor again after hearing that she had only a year to live, and they married again in 2007 in Toronto. Pictured, Windsor and Spyer at a gathering in May 2005. Hide Caption 8 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Even though New York courts ruled that "foreign same-sex marriages" should be recognized in 2009, Windsor was billed $363,053 in estate taxes after Spyer died that year. Windsor file suit. Here, after a hearing at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on September 27. Hide Caption 9 of 10 Photos: Photos: Edith Windsor's fight for recognition Edith Windsor's fight for recognition – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York speaking with Windsor before a news conference, and 16 other Democrats introduced a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in 2011. Hide Caption 10 of 10

Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court. Hide Caption 1 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – United States v. Windsor (2013): When her wife died in 2009, Edith Windsor, 84, was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes because her marriage was not recognized by the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the law which denied legally marriage same-sex couples the same federal benefits provided to heterosexual spouses. Hide Caption 2 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): The Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration's health care reform law, on June 28, 2012. The decision determined how hundreds of millions of Americans will receive health care. Hide Caption 3 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Activists rally in February 2012 to urge the Supreme Court to overturn its decision that fundamentally changed campaign finance law by allowing corporations and unions to contribute unlimited funds to political action committees not affiliated with a candidate. Hide Caption 4 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Texas v. Johnson (1989): The Supreme Court overturned the decision that convicted Gregory Lee Johnson of desecrating a venerated object after he set an American flag on fire during a protest. The court ruled that Johnson (at right with his lawyer, William Kunstler) was protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Hide Caption 5 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – United States v. Nixon (1974): When President Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege over taped conversations regarding the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn over the tapes and other documents. The ruling set a precedent limiting the power of the president of the United States. Hide Caption 6 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Roe v. Wade (1973): Norma McCorvey, identified as "Jane Roe," sued Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade over a law that made it a felony to have an abortion unless the life of the mother was in danger. The court agreed with Roe and overruled any laws that made abortion illegal in the first trimester. Here, McCorvey, left, stands with her attorney Gloria Allred in 1989. Hide Caption 7 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Ernesto Miranda confessed to a crime without the police informing him of his right to an attorney or right against self-incrimination. His attorney argued in court that the confession should have been inadmissible, and in 1966, the Supreme Court agreed. The term "Miranda rights" has been used since. Hide Caption 8 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The Supreme Court overturned the burglary conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon after he wrote to the court from his prison cell, explaining he was denied the right to an attorney at his 1961 trial. Hide Caption 9 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Dollree Mapp because the evidence collected against her was obtained during an illegal search. The ruling re-evaluated the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Hide Caption 10 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Nathaniel Steward recites his lesson surrounded by white classmates at the Saint-Dominique School in Washington. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to separate students based on race. Hide Caption 11 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Korematsu v. United States (1944): Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American man, was arrested after authorities found out that he claimed to be a Mexican-American to avoid an internment camp during World War II. The court ruled that the rights of an individual were not as important as the need to protect the country during wartime. In 1998, President Bill Clinton awarded Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Hide Caption 12 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Homer Plessy was arrested when he refused to leave a whites-only segregated train car, claiming he was 7/8 white and only 1/8 black. The Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities for blacks were constitutional, which remained the rule until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Hide Caption 13 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): When Dred Scott asked a circuit court to reward him his freedom after moving to a free state, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress didn't have the right to prohibit slavery and, further, that those of African-American descent were not protected by the Constitution. Hide Caption 14 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): This was the first case to establish Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The ruling signaled a shift in power from the states to the federal government. Aaron Ogden, seen here, was given exclusive permission from the state of New York to navigate the waters between New York and certain New Jersey ports. When Ogden brought a lawsuit against Thomas Gibbons for operating steamships in his waters, the Supreme Court sided with Gibbons. Hide Caption 15 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): In response to the federal government's controversial decision to institute a national bank in the state, Maryland tried to tax the bank out of business. When a federal bank cashier, James W. McCulloch, refused to pay the taxes, the state of Maryland filed charges against him. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that chartering a bank was an implied power of the Constitution. The first national bank, pictured, was created by Congress in 1791 in Philadelphia. Hide Caption 16 of 17 Photos: Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America Supreme Court cases that changed America – Marbury v. Madison (1803): When Secretary of State James Madison, seen here, tried to stop Federal loyalists from being appointed to judicial positions, he was sued by William Marbury. Marbury was one of former President John Adams' appointees, and the court decided that although he had a right to the position, the court couldn't enforce his appointment. The case defined the boundaries of the executive and judicial branches of government. Hide Caption 17 of 17

VOTING RIGHTS: Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder; Nix v. Holder

AT ISSUE: The continued use by the federal government of the key enforcement provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

THE CASE: Section 5 gives federal authorities open-ended oversight of states and localities with a history of voter discrimination. Any changes in voting laws and procedures in the covered states must be "pre-cleared" with Washington.

THE ARGUMENTS: The provision was reauthorized in 2006 for another quarter-century, and counties in Alabama and North Carolina subsequently filed suit, saying the monitoring was overly burdensome and unwarranted. All or parts of 16 states are currently covered under the provision. Other states are not covered by the pre-clearance provision even if they, too, might discriminate against minority voters.

In a separate high court case from three years ago, the conservative majority suggested -- but never fully affirmed -- that the continued use of Section 5 may soon be nullified. "Things have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2009. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the pre-clearance requirements. The Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs."

THE OUTCOME: The conservative majority again appears to have the votes to strike down or severely gut Section 5. The court could then encourage Congress and the Obama administration to fashion a new enforcement policy that would meet constitutional scrutiny.

THE IMPACT: The high court's decision to accept these appeals for a full review came in a presidential election year that incorporated newly redrawn voting boundaries, based on the updated census. This ruling would likely impact next year's mid-term elections.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (Two separate issues)

Defense of Marriage Act: Windsor v. U.S.

AT ISSUE: Whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.

THE CASES: Edith "Edie" Windsor was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those other married couples would have to pay. Because her partner was a woman, the federal government did not recognize the same-sex marriage legally, even though their home state of New York did. The law known as DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and woman only.

The legal issue is whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. Federal appeals courts in New York and Boston struck the benefits provision, with judges in one case saying, "If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test."

THE ARGUMENTS: Federal courts have not yet addressed the federal law's other key provision: states that do not allow same-sex marriages cannot be forced to recognize such unions performed in other states. Traditionally, marriages in one jurisdiction are considered valid across the country.

THE OUTCOME: There are many options. The simplest solution would be for the court to dismiss the appeal on standing grounds, or who has a right to bring a case before the court. That would leave the lower courts or the other branches to decide who would defend DOMA. But if the court strikes down the benefits provision -- the only part of DOMA at issue here -- that would create many unanswered questions, especially in those states that currently ban gay marriage.

THE IMPACT: The Obama administration, in a rare move, has refused to defend a federal law in court. That left the GOP-controlled House of Representatives to file the legal appeals to the high court, creating unusual questions about standing.

California ballot measure (Proposition 8): Hollingsworth v. Perry

AT ISSUE: Whether the Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection" prevents states from defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman.

THE CASE: The "Prop 8" case, as it has become known, has been down a complicated legal road. California's Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages were legal in 2008. After the statewide ballot measure banning them passed with 52% of the vote later that year, gay and lesbian marriages were put on hold. Then a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled the measure unconstitutional. In its split decision, the panel found Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage.

THE ARGUMENTS: California is the only state that accepted, then revoked, same-sex marriage as a legal right. The measure's supporters asked the justices to preserve the will of the voters in this politically charged social issue. Opponents of Prop 8 seek a court-ordered expansion of the "traditional" views of marriage.

THE OUTCOME: With so many options, the simplest one would be to "DIG" it -- dismiss the case as "improvidently granted," meaning the larger constitutional issues would not be settled, at least now. That could throw the case back to the lower courts to sort out the jurisdictional issues and perhaps allow another voter referendum next year on gay marriage. A sweeping ruling on whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right seems unlikely.

THE IMPACT: Currently, same-sex marriage is allowed in nine states and the District of Columbia. Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota's recently passed laws take effect this summer. It is estimated about 120,000 legally married same-sex couples live in the United States.

Another seven or so states recognize civil unions or broad domestic partnerships, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples. Obama, who previously opposed same-sex marriage, said he now supports it.

PATENTS - Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics

AT ISSUE: Whether human genes are patentable. Can "products of nature" be treated the same as "human-made" inventions and held as the exclusive intellectual property of individuals and companies?

THE CASE: A Utah-based company was sued over its claim of patents on two human genes. Myriad Genetics isolated and identified related types of biological material, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2, whose mutations are linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer. With its development of synthesized gene clones, Myriad is the only company that can perform tests for potential abnormalities.

THE ARGUMENTS: On one side, many scientists and companies argue that patents encourage medical innovation and investment that save lives. On the other, patient rights groups and civil libertarians counter that the patent holders are "holding hostage" the diagnostic care and access to information available to high-risk patients.

The patent system was created more than two centuries ago with a dual purpose: offering temporary financial incentives for those at the ground floor of innovative products and ensuring that one company does not hold a lifetime monopoly that might stifle competition and consumer affordability.

THE OUTCOME: The court signaled during oral arguments it might strike a middle ground by blocking companies from patenting "natural" genes themselves but allowing them to patent the discovery of something valuable about the gene, such as a test to detect breast cancer.

The high court has long allowed patent protection for the creation of a new process or use for natural products. Whether "isolating" or "extracting" genes themselves qualifies for such protection is now the issue.

THE IMPACT: The issue gained greater public attention when actress Angelina Jolie announced this month she had undergone a double mastectomy after taking the BRCA tests from Myriad. In what could be a guide to the justices in Myriad, the high court last term rejected a patent claim on a doctor's medical diagnosis of a patient's reaction to a drug.