The Roberts Court on Monday denied review of a Louisiana ban on same-sex marriage, noting the federal appeals court has yet to rule, as well as two campaign finance related challenges.

The Roberts Court on Monday denied review of a Louisiana ban on same-sex marriage, noting the federal appeals court has yet to rule, as well as two campaign finance related challenges.

Shutterstock

The Supreme Court returned from its winter break on Monday and refused to review several high-profile legal challenges, including a marriage equality case from Louisiana.

The Court declined to review a request by same-sex couples in Louisiana to hear arguments against that state’s ban on marriage equality. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Friday on Louisiana’s ban while also considering similar challenges to bans in Texas and Mississippi.

The Roberts Court, however, did not act on the four marriage equality cases pending out of the Sixth Circuit. Those cases include challenges from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Instead the cases from the Sixth Circuit were re-listed for the justices’ next conference on Friday. An order on those cases could come Friday afternoon or the following week.

The Supreme Court also declined to take up two recent campaign finance related challenges, including a case brought by James Bopp Jr., an anti-abortion advocate and one of the legal architects of the Citizens United case that created corporate First Amendment free speech rights. Bopp, on behalf of Vermont Right to Life, had challenged a Vermont law that requires certain advocacy organizations to register as political action committees (PACs) and disclose donors.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

A second case, Stop This Insanity Employee Leadership Fund v. Federal Election Commission, had challenged certain kinds of restrictions of PAC spending activities as violating the First Amendment.

The Roberts Court waded into other First Amendment issues in the first oral argument since winter break in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert. In that case, pastor Clyde Reed claimed an ordinance in Gilbert, Arizona, violated the First Amendment because it stipulated the size and number of signs he can post to advertise for church services.

Attorneys defending the town’s ordinance say that because the restrictions apply to all posts, the ordinance is not discriminatory.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy organization, represents Reed.

A decision in the case is not expected until spring.