Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp during a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on March 21, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

It’s down to the Final Four.

Freshmen Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana announced their support for same-sex marriage this morning, leaving just four Democratic senators who haven’t publicly endorsed it.

Donnelly, a Catholic and conservative Democrat, posted his announcement on his Facebook page. He concluded:

“With the recent Supreme Court arguments and accompanying public discussion of same-sex marriage, I have been thinking about my past positions and votes. In doing so, I have concluded that the right thing to do is to support marriage equality for all.”

Heitkamp previously said she believes same-sex marriage is a state issue. She released this statement today:

“In speaking with North Dakotans from every corner of our great state, and much personal reflection, I have concluded the federal government should no longer discriminate against people who want to make lifelong, loving commitments to each other or interfere in personal, private, and intimate relationships.  I view the ability of anyone to marry as a logical extension of this belief. The makeup of families is changing, but the importance of family is enduring.”

Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia are the only Senate Democrats who have not publicly backed same-sex marriage. Pryor and Landrieu are up for re-election in 2014.

Just two Republicans, Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Mark Kirk of Illinois, have switched to support of same-sex marriage.

That raises the tally of support in the Senate to 53.

Jonathan Salant contributed to this report, and see his report at Bloomberg.com.

Original post is Final Four: Gay Marriage Draws Two More Democrats, Four Left by Political Capital.

Photograph by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

A same-sex marriage supporter waves a rainbow flag in front of the US Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC, as the Court takes up the issue of gay marriage.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson just took himself off a shrinking list of Democratic Senate holdouts: He reversed his position against same-sex marriage.

With Nelson as the 51st senator to voice support, more than half the U.S. Senate now backs same-sex marriage.

Nelson will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the California law prohibiting same-sex marriage, he said in a statement in the Tampa Bay Times, excerpted here:

“Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”

“So I will add my name to the petition of senators asking the Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional.”

Nelson, whose home state of Florida voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, told the Miami Herald he believes marriage is a state issue after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.

“I believe marriage should be left to the states, and Florida voted on same-sex marriage in 2008,” he said at the time. Floridians voted 62-38 percent to define marriage as between one man and one woman in 2008, the Herald reported. Currently, 75 percent of Florida voters support at least civil unions for same-sex couples, according to Public Policy Polling.

Nelson’s reversal comes three weeks after Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, said he supports same-sex marriage. Prompted by two March Supreme Court cases on the issue, a wave of Democratic senators and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois followed Portman’s lead.

Only six Democratic senators have not endorsed same-sex marriage: Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Among them, Pryor and Landrieu are up for re-election in 2014.

Original post is Nelson Backs Gay Marriage: Six Democratic Senators Left Silent by Political Capital.

Photograph by Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

Marriage equality supporters wave flags and signs as they rally in front of the Supreme Court before oral arguments in the United States v. Windsor case, which will test the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act on March 27, 2013.

That’s the percentage of members of Congress in 1996 who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act barring same-sex couples from claiming federal benefits available to other married couples.

President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law after 342 of 411 House members and 85 of 99 senators backed it.

Clinton and many legislators who backed DOMA 17 years ago have since reversed their positions amid increased public support for same-sex unions. The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the constitutionality of the law, the second case about same-sex marriage this week.

Original post is Bloomberg by the Numbers: 84 by Political Capital.

“On the basis of what I heard, the questions of the justices, the response of the participants, I am very optimistic that DOMA will be struck down,” Pelosi told reporters after attending today’s argument on the constitutionality of the 1996 law, which bars gay spouses from claiming the same federal benefits conferred on other married couples.

After attending last year’s argument on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul law, Pelosi correctly called the outcome, if not the vote tally. She told reporters than that the justices would vote 6-3 to uphold the Affordable Care Act. The court split 5-4 to affirm the law’s constitutionality.

“I got it right,” Pelosi said of her earlier prediction.

Original post is Pelosi ‘Very Confident’ Supreme Court Will Overturn Marriage Law by Political Capital.

Photograph by Sam Hodgson/Bloomberg

People walk on the beach in Tijuana, Mexico, beyond the U.S.-Mexico border fence in San Diego, California, on March 21, 2012.

Immigration policy is the main subject of discussion at events hosted by the Migration Policy Institute, the Economic Policy Institute and the Small Business Majority in Washington today. Meanwhile, Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake will host Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado on a visit to the Arizona border as they work to craft an immigation bill, ABC reported.

The Supreme Court continues its foray into the same-sex marriage debate, hearing arguments today on the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex married couples. The nation’s high court considered same-sex marriage for the first time yesterday, hearing arguments on Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure approved by voters that bars such unions.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Google Fiber executive Milo Medin take part in the “Gigabit City Challenge,” calling for all 50 states to have at least one community with ultra-fast Internet by 2015.

The approval rating of Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, has recovered to 40-37 percent from negative 36-41 percent last month amid allegations of impropriety, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. That’s as the planned retirement of Sen. Tim Johnson, a South Dakota Democrat, next year bolsters Republican chances of claiming half of the six seats they need to take control of the Senate, Bloomberg News reports.

The Aspen Institute holds a discussion on measuring socio-economic implications of business, with representatives from Accenture, Coca-Cola, Oxfam America and the Grameen Foundation. SAIS holds a discussion on women in corporate leadership with former Commerce Sec. Barbara Franklin, chair of the National Association of Corporate Directors. Amtrak submits its fiscal 2014 budget to Congress, seeking $373 million in support, down 16% from $443 million this year, Bloomberg News reports.

And the Library of Congress hosts a poetry reading this evening to celebrate writing from American South, with U.S. Poet Laureate Natasha Trethewey.

 Chelsea Mes, Nick Taborek and Laura Curtis contributed to this report.

Original post is Washington Daybook: Border Patrol by Political Capital.

Photograph by Karen Bleier/AFP via Getty Images

Gay pride flags at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC.

2:36 p.m. That’ll do it for today’s live blog. The court could issue its decisions in this week’s gay marriage cases at any time. But it’s likely to follow past practice, holding its most contentious cases until the end of the term. There are 93 days until June 27, which is likely to be the final day the court sits before its summer break. Meanwhile, we’ll be covering developments in this and other legal cases and controversies on Bloomberg.com and BloombergLaw.com. Thanks for joining us today.

2:00 p.m. The court has now posted today’s transcript and audio recording.

1:36 p.m.Where does your state stand on gay marriages and civil unions? The Associated Press has this interactive graphic. And Bloomberg News shows how statewide votes on gay marriage have turned out.

1:25 p.m. Most major news organizations are taking the same approach in their early full-argument stories — DOMA is likely to be toast. A selection of the coverage:

Washington Post: Majority of justices question constitutionality of DOMA
A majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and whether it created unequal classes of married couples by extending federal benefits only to marriages between a man and a woman.

New York Times: 5 Justices Skeptical of Ban on Benefits to Gay Spouses
A majority of the justices on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, as the Supreme Court took up the volatile issue of same-sex marriage for a second day.

Reuters: Supreme Court indicates may strike down marriage law
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday indicated interest in striking down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

NBC  News: Justices signal they might strike down federal marriage law
Hearing a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows federal benefits to go only to heterosexual married couples, the Supreme Court indicated that it might strike down the 1996 law. After the conclusion of the oral arguments, NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reported that there seemed to be five votes to invalidate the law.

CNN: Justices somewhat receptive to repealing federal law on same-sex marriage
The Supreme Court offered at least a measure of support Wednesday for doing away with a federal law that denies legally married same-sex married couples the same range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual partners.

Fox News: Supreme Court justices raise doubts about federal marriage law
A majority of Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism Wednesday about the legitimacy of a federal provision that prevents married gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits, raising questions about whether the Defense of Marriage Act will stand.

Associated Press: High court skeptical of federal marriage law
The Supreme Court is indicating it could strike down the law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits that go to married people.

1:00 p.m. In BuzzFeed’s recap story, it says “A majority of Supreme Court justices Wednesday appeared ready to declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage for federal purposes as limited to one man and one woman.”

12:48 p.m. Lawyers and politicians are reacting to today’s arguments on C-SPAN right now.

12:24 p.m. Oral arguments ended about 10 minutes ago. We’re going to shift from piecemeal reports from inside the room to the first comprehensive stories providing context for today’s arguments.

12:24 p.m. Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker and CNN also thinks DOMA is facing an uphill climb, but his prediction is not as definitive as the earlier post from SCOTUSblog:

#doma in trouble at #scotus. Kennedy suggests it violates states’ rights. #ssm

— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) March 27, 2013

    12:21 p.m. During Clement’s argument he said, Bloomberg News reports:

The government’s goal is uniform treatment of taxpayers in the various states, Clement said. Under questioning from Justice Stephen Breyer, Clement said the federal government also could decide not to recognize state-law marriages based on matters such as differing ages of consent. “You’re saying uniform treatment is good enough, no matter how odd it is,” Breyer said.

  12:18 p.m. In what may be the quote of the day, Justice Ginsburg likened same-sex marriages under DOMA to “skim-milk” marriages, the Wall Street Journal reports.   12:15 p.m. Representing House Republican leaders, Paul Clement told the court, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Clement said the federal government has a particularly acute interest in couples being treated equally across state lines.  That wouldn’t happen if same-sex couples in states with gay marriage could receive federal benefits, while same-sex couples in other states could not.  It was rational, he said, for Congress to treat all same-sex couples the same.

  12:06 p.m. An unusually exact prediction from SCOTUSblog on the final outcome:

Final update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states’ rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 27, 2013

11:55 a.m. Back to the standing question. Here’s the Wall Street Journal’s early take on the bottom line:

As the procedural portion of the day’s arguments wound down, it wasn’t completely clear that the court believed it was free and clear to rule on the merits of DOMA’s constitutionality.  The reservations the justices expressed during Wednesday’s proceedings stood in contrast to last year’s health-care arguments, where the court sent clear signals early on that it would decide the constitutionality of the health law.

11:46 a.m. Bloomberg News is reporting that at least two justices have raised the issue of conflicts between DOMA and state laws that recognize same-sex marriages:

During initial arguments today on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that a federal law that doesn’t recognize gay marriages that are legal in some states can create conflicts. “You are at real risk of running in conflict” with the “essence” of state powers, Kennedy said. Still, he also said there was “quite a bit” to the argument by backers of the law that the federal government at times needs to use its own definition of marriage, such as in income tax cases. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that when a marriage under state law isn’t recognized by the federal government, “One might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?”

11:36 a.m. The court’s conservatives are not pleased with how the Obama administration has handled the case. It has claimed the law is unconstitutional and refused to defend it in court. From Reuters:

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed government lawyer Sri Srinivasan on how the government will now decide which laws to defend. “What is your test?” Roberts asked. Justice Antonin Scalia, who served in the Justice Department in the 1970s, criticized its “new regime.”

11:33 a.m. Early word from the second half of today’s arguments, via SCOTUSblog:

Update: J Kennedy asks two questions doubting #doma validity but nothing decisive and Chief Justice and Kagan have yet to speak. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 27, 2013

11:28 a.m. Looks like the court thinks it has the ability to hear the DOMA case, the Wall Street Journal is reporting:

Justices asked skeptical questions of Ms. Jackson, suggesting that they didn’t buy her arguments that neither the House members who defend DOMA nor the executive branch have an interest in the case.

11:08 a.m. Tough words from Chief Justice Roberts, the Wall Street Journal is reporting:

Chief Justice John Roberts told attrorney Sri Srinivasan, the principal deputy solicitor general, that the government’s actions were “unprecedented.” To agree with a lower court ruling finding DOMA unconstitutional but yet seeking the Supreme Court to weigh in while it enforces the law is “has never been done before,” he said.

11:04 a.m. It’s deja vu all over again. The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

Conservative justices sharply questioned why the Justice Department is refusing to defend DOMA as unconstitutional but yet enforcing the law and placing the gay-marriage question before the Supreme Court. Justices also questioned whether the case belonged before the court at all.  

10:54 a.m. First report from inside the courtroom is from SCOTUSblog, and it sounds like it’s a real slog in the early going today:

#doma jurisdiction argument continues with no clear indication of whether a majority believes #scotus has the power to decide the case. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 27, 2013

10:45 a.m. As we continue to await word from inside the courtroom, it’s worth mentioning that it was announced this morning that our friends at SCOTUSblog have won a Peabody Award. The awards “recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by broadcasters, cable and Webcasters, producing organizations, and individuals.” Bloomberg Law is a sponsor of SCOTUSblog.

10:39 a.m. The libertarian Cato Institute takes a crack at answering Jusice Scalia’s question from yesterday: “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” Attorney Ted Olson answered by saying “There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.” But Cato claims “either it was unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples from marriage in 1868 or it’s still constitutional to do so.”

10:32 a.m. Reuters is reporting the atmosphere outside the building is more subdued today, and almost all the approximately 1,000 demonstrators are pro gay marriage.

10:26 a.m. Reuters has a backgrounder about Harvard Law Professor Vicki Jackson, who was appointed by the court “to address issues that affect the court’s ability to rule on the case.” She’s up first this morning.

10:20 a.m. Here’s what the very crowded Supreme Court press room looked like in the minutes leading up to today’s arguments, from Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson:

Reporters getting ready for the #DOMA arguments in the #SCOTUS press room twitter.com/chrisjohnson82…

— Chris Johnson (@chrisjohnson82) March 27, 2013

10:16 a.m. That’s it for decisions for today. Now we wait for the first reporting on the gay marriage arguments to emerge from the courtroom. We’ll bring it to you as it develops.

10:11 a.m. And in a second case today, Bloomberg News’ Greg Stohr reports:

Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable-television company, doesn’t have to defend against an $875 million antitrust lawsuit on behalf of as many as 2 million Philadelphia-area customers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.    The justices, voting 5-4 to reverse a lower court, said the case against Comcast was too unwieldy to proceed as a single class-action lawsuit.

The full decision is here.

10:08 a.m. A unanimous court has ruled in Millbrook v. United States. From the opinion’s headnotes:

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from tort suits, but excepts from that waiver certain intentional torts, 28 U. S. C. §2680(h). Section §2680(h), in turn, contains a proviso that extends the waiver of immunity to claims for six intentional torts, including assault and battery, that are based on the“acts or omissions” of an “investigative or law enforcement officer” i.e., a federal officer “who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests.” Petitioner Millbrook, a federal prisoner, sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging, inter alia, assault and battery by correctional officers. The District Court granted the Government summary judgment, and the Third Circuit affirmed, hewing to its precedent that the “law enforcement proviso” applies only to tortious conduct that occurs during the course of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest.

Held: The law enforcement proviso extends to law enforcement officers’ acts or omissions that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest.

9:51 a.m. With one or more decisions expected to come from the court at 10:00 a.m., the Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen asks what most reporters are wondering right now: will we get a blockbuster today?

Supreme Court also set this morning to issue opinions. Will today be the day for the affirmative action ruling out of Texas?

— Andrew Cohen (@CBSAndrew) March 27, 2013

9:46 a.m. University of Massachusetts professor Lee Badgett discusses the economics of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage on Bloomberg TV:

9:28 a.m. The New York Times has a look at the friendship between conservative lawyers Ted Olson and Charles Cooper, who faced off yesterday in the Prop 8 case:

“It really made me proud to be a lawyer in the United States to see Chuck and Ted — good friends from the same political party — duking it out up there today,” said Theodore J. Boutros Jr., a lawyer with long Washington experience who is on Mr. Olson’s legal team in the marriage case but has litigated alongside Mr. Cooper in the past. “This is the way to decide legal issues. It made me feel good about the court and the country.”

And the paper profiles Maine attorney Mary Bonauto, who is on the sidelines of this week’s cases but “who some say is almost single-handedly responsible for the same-sex marriage cases now pending before the Supreme Court.”

9:18 a.m. In his look back at yesterday’s argument, New Yorker writer and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has this look ahead to today’s session:

The argument on Prop 8 appeared to raise the stakes for the argument on DOMA. That case presents a narrower question—the constitutionality of a single federal law, as opposed to the marriage laws in the forty-one states that do not currently have same-sex marriage. DOMA penalizes gay and lesbian married people in states that permit same-sex marriage by denying them federal benefits and obligations. That’s a more tempting (and distasteful) target for the liberals and certainly for Kennedy himself. It may be that the Court has determined to strike down DOMA, and leave the broader issue of requiring same-sex marriage for another year.

And here’s a look at his ticket for today’s session:

My ticket for today. Unfortunately, we can’t kee them. #scotus #doma twitter.com/JeffreyToobin/…

— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) March 27, 2013

A trio of pretty good signs to start the morning… #scotus twitter.com/josephax/statu…

— Joseph Ax (@josephax) March 27, 2013

9:02 a.m. Just as there is a Supreme Court bar of lawyers who specialize in practicing before the court, there is a Supreme Court punditocracy of analysts who specialize in reading its tea leaves. Here’s what some of them took away from yesterday’s arguments about California’s Prop 8:

Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog: Focusing on Kennedy, although that is often the closest one can come to anticipating outcomes on a divided Court, was an even more reliable approach this time given that the other eight Justices were so clearly split: four friendly to same-sex marriage as a constitutional matter, three hostile to it — and, in the end, likely to attract a fourth to that view.

Nina Totenberg, NPR: The showdown at the same-sex-marriage corral seemed to get derailed from the get-go by the procedural issues involved in the case — a legal test of the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage that was passed by the California voters in 2008.

Andrew Cohen, The Atlantic: None of the justices of the United States Supreme Court shared an epiphany on the topic. They are all precisely who we thought they were, who they have always been. This is the most conservative Court in 75 years — the most conservative federal appeals court in the nation — and it showed, both in the ideology of the justices’ questions and in the reluctance they expressed to issue a broad ruling.

Tony Marro, Law.com: All the justices—except for Clarence Thomas, who kept to his habit of silence during argument—asked about jurisdiction, with more than a few expressing doubt that California could delegate the defense of a state law to individuals who have no fiduciary duty to the state.

Jan Crawford, CBS News: Predicting a decision based on arguments is dangerous — much can happen as the justices cast votes and set out writing opinions. But in today’s arguments, justices on both sides seemed to be looking for a way to avoid deciding the merits of the California same-sex marriage case.

8:40 a.m. Though not directly on point to the gay marriage cases, Slate has a look at when lawyers started to get a bad name in society. Answer: the Middle Ages.

8:31 a.m. The ACLU twitter feed has this look at anti gay marriage protestors outside the court building this morning:

Opponents of the #freedomtomarry serenade the crowd outside #SCOTUS before #DOMA argument. vine.co/v/bjOh0q16xK5

— ACLU Live (@ACLULive) March 27, 2013

8:07 a.m. If the case were to be decided based on who had the funniest protest signs, gay marriage supporters would win in a walk, according to Quartz. Get your laughs on here. And for a more somber look at yesterday’s proceedings, go inside the courtroom with NBC’s sketch artist, the legendary Art Lien.

8:01 a.m. For more background on Windsor, check out this excellent New York Times profile from December. New York magazine ran a great slideshow with pictures throughout her life. And Tablet magazine also did a short profile of her attorney, Paul Weiss partner Roberta Kaplan.

7:55 a.m. Tom Taylor, editor of Bloomberg BNA’s US Law Week, has this shot of plaintiff Edith Windsor entering the court minutes ago:

Plaintiff #Windsor entering #SCOTUS before #DOMA argument. vine.co/v/bjO737l39Pz

— Tom Taylor (@Tom_PTaylor) March 27, 2013

7:51 a.m. In an overlooked story from yesterday, Yahoo News reported:

On Facebook and Twitter, thousands of users changed their profile pictures to the image of a pink equal sign over a red background to show their support for same-sex marriage. The graphic was a take on the usual blue and yellow logo of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group that released the red image to mobilize supporters around the Supreme Court’s gay marriage hearings this week.

According to HRC, the new logo debuted on the group’s Facebook page on Monday at 1 p.m. ET and has since been shared more than 100,000 times. At least 70,000 of those shares came through followers of George Takei, a former “Star Trek” actor who is openly gay. On Tuesday, Takei changed his profile photo to the red logo and urged his followers to do the same.

7:48 a.m. For those of you who need a refresher, two videos will get you up to speed:

SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein walks through what he’ll be looking for in this week’s arguments:

The five issues the court will be facing in this week’s cases are broken down in 90 seconds:

7:40 a.m. The court is expected to hand down rulings in one or more cases at 10:00 a.m. That process might take up to 15 minutes, depending on how much justices choose to read of their opinions. Then the hour and 50 minutes of arguments in the gay marriage cases will get underway. SCOTUSblog provided a list of the order of appearances:

Fifty-minute argument on the question of the Court’s jurisdiction to decide this case:

Arguing against jurisdiction, Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard law professor, amica appointed by the Court to oppose jurisdiction, 20 minutes

Arguing for the government’s right to appeal, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, representing the federal government, 15 minutes

Arguing for a right to appeal for the House Republican leaders (the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s majority members), Paul D. Clement of the Washington office of Bancroft PLLC, 15 minutes.

One-hour argument on the constitutionality of DOMA:

Defending constitutionality, Paul Clement, representing the House Republican leaders (BLAG’s majority), 30 minutes

Challenging constitutionality, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, for the federal government, 15 minutes

Challenging constitutionality, Roberta A. Kaplan of the New York office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, representing Edith Windsor of New York City, who sued over Section 3 of DOMA, 15 minutes.

The arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA set up a rematch between Paul Clement and Donald Verrilli, who faced off in the Obamacare arguments. Many observers thought Clement got the better of his opponent in that case, but it turned out Verrilli won in the end.

7:27 a.m. Welcome to Day Two of the Supreme Court arguments in the gay marriage cases. This is your live blog to all the action. Reload this page throughout the day for our latest updates.

Today’s case is United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA, which was passed by Congress in 1996, says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages, even if they are recognized by individual states. That means same-sex couples do not receive federal insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, nor are they able to file joint tax returns.

The court must decide two procedural issues before it would get to the core of the case:

1. Since the Obama Administration agrees with the Second Circuit that DOMA is unconstitutional, does that deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case? If yes, the court’s work ends here.

2. Do House Republican leaders — formally known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives — have standing in this case? If no, the court’s work ends here.

3. Does DOMA violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws?

- – - – - – - – - – -

Edward Adams is the Multimedia Editor of Bloomberg Law

Original post is Wednesday’s Supreme Court Gay Marriage Arguments Live Blog by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

Hollingsworth v. Perry Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, left, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo are pictured on the steps of the National Archives in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2013.

5:10 p.m. Today’s coverage of  Hollingsworth v. Perry is ending. Check back with Political Capital early Wednesday morning for our live blog of the oral arguments in U.S. v. Windsor, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

4:35 p.m. Nearly lost in the shuffle of tweets was this post-arguments assessment by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, co-counsel to the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case.

@erin_gs wonderful day @ Court.fusillade of questions for both sides. thrilling and inspiring day 4this country #time4marriage

— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) March 26, 2013

Boutrous recently talked about the sustained coverage and heightened awareness of the Prop. 8 case over the last few years. He spoke with us by phone on the one day in March when he wasn’t on the road and away from his Los Angeles office. Boutrous has been fielding most of the press requests for the plaintiffs’ team and working on addressing public interest in the case.

“We’ve been very sensitive to the fact that we were treading into an area with a lot of political sensitivity, and we had to match our team and public discussion about the case to that reality,” he says. “We live in a time of incredible modes of communication that can affect public views and public discussion but when it’s a case of such national importance, and it’s important to real people across the country, it’s necessary to also engage in the public sphere.

“There have been comparisons to Roe v. Wade but it’s not even close to a comparable situation. Back in 1973, people didn’t know what cases were being argued at the Supreme Court. Here we have a situation in which for four years, there’s been nation-wide and global discussion of the case, of the issues…So the Court’s rulings, when they come out, their decisions are less controversial because the public knows what the possible outcomes are.”

4:20 p.m. Another excellent recap of today’s proceedings comes from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who offers the following details on the arguments put forth by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and the questions he faced:

The Obama Administration’s argument ran into considerable skeptical questions from both wings of the court. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. argued that same-sex marriage should be imposed on those states that already grants all of the benefits and duties of that status through their recognition of civil unions–nine states.

“So a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but a state that has made no progress doesn’t have to do anything at all?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who along with Justice Stephen Breyer, saw that argument as “internally inconsistent.”

But Verrilli said, “We’re not prepared to close the door (on states that might have legitimate interests not yet known).” The Proposition 8 proponents have offered no state interest to justify the exclusion of gay couples when the state already gives them all of the benefits of the marriage status, he argued.

Read the full article here. There is also this report from Coyle’s colleague and fellow Supreme Court reporter, Tony Mauro.

3:40 p.m. Three big, and telling, questions were asked during today’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, writes Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Paul Barrett.

I just wonder if the case was properly granted.

The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?

Was not the appellate-court decision in the California case ‘very odd’?

It’s no surprise that all three questions came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, as Barrett sees it, “hold[s] the decision in his hands.” That’s in keeping with much of what’s been put forth in the hours after the hearing ended, shortly before 12 p.m. ET on Tuesday. “When the Supreme Court rules, probably by late June, it’s a safe bet that Kennedy’s answers will determine the outcome.”

2:28 pm.Every now and then, a break from reading — the recaps of today’s arguments as well as the previews of tomorrow’s equally important questions in U.S. v. Windsor (Political Capital will also cover Wednesday’s DOMA case)–is in order. There’s a link to a nice artists’s rendering of Ted Olson making the case against Proposition 8 earlier today in this tweet:

Lawyer Theodore Olsen, representing same-sex couples, addresses #SCOTUS in artist rendering of today’s arguments: apne.ws/XadF9v — AP Courtside Seat (@AP_Courtside) March 26, 2013

1:50 p.m. Major media outlets issued assessments of oral arguments shortly after the proceedings concluded. Here is a selection of some of the coverage:

Supreme Court Justices Conflicted on Gay Marriage Case – The Washington Post

“Defending the 2008 law that effectively banned same-sex marriage in California, Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper encountered skeptical questions from at least four justices, including Anthony M. Kennedy, who is considered a potential swing vote in the case.”

Justices Hint at Fears of Acting Too Quickly on Gay Marriage – The New York Times

“In a vivid comment as the Supreme Court conducted the first of two days of arguments on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often a swing vote in major cases, spoke strongly about the interests of the children of same-sex couples, saying there were an estimated 40,000 such children in California alone. ‘They want their parents to have full recognition,’ Mr. Kennedy said.”

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban – The Huffington Post

“The justices spent a good deal of time in the first half of the hour examining whether the parties defending Prop. 8 had legal standing, and seemed to cast doubt on whether they did. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that the case may not reach the central issue of whether gay couples are entitled to marriage, and might fall on issues of standing.”

High Court Hears Arguments on Calif. Gay Marriage Ban – Associated Press

“The Supreme Court is raising the prospect that it will find a way out of the case over California’s ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a substantial ruling on whether gays have a right to marry.”

Justices Wary of Broad Ruling Endorsing Gay Marriage – Reuters

“As the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on the delicate and divisive issue of gay marriage, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed doubt that California opponents of gay marriage had a right to be heard in federal court.”

Supreme Court Justices Wary of Sweeping Vote on Gay Marriage – Politico

“The country may seem to be in a hurry on same-sex marriage, but not the Supreme Court.”

1:20 p.m. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, in his recap of this morning’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, details the options before members of the Court in this case and includes reactions from the Justices. Justice Kennedy, Denniston writes, “appeared to be troubled about the Court entering ‘uncharted waters,’ on the core issue of who may marry, but at the same time, he also did not look comfortable with any of the other, more limited options. So he openly wondered why the Court had agreed even to hear this case.’”

12:50 p.m. The audio recording of today’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop. 8) is now available at this link, as is the transcript of the proceedings.

12:40 p.m. Here’s a nice state-by-state look at same-sex marriage laws, from Bloomberg Visual Data reporter @AlexTribou.

12:20 p.m. There’s an abundance of analysis to review. First up is SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein’s take on today’s oral arguments. Goldstein already has predicted how the Justices might vote on the case. It comes down to the question of “standing”:

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

As for the constitutionality of Proposition 8, there is equal division among all the Justices–other than Justice Kennedy –along ideological lines, Goldstein notes. “For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.”

Read Goldstein’s full report here.

12:00 p.m. Charles Cooper is now addressing reporters. “We believe that Proposition 8 is constitutional and the place for redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts.”

Charles Cooper, who argued for proponents of Proposition 8. #SCOTUS twitter.com/learyreports/s… — Alex Leary (@learyreports) March 26, 2013

11:52 a.m. David Boies is now addressing reporters outside the Supreme Court, and cautions people not to read too much into the questions asked by the Justices. Ted Olson says, “the questions might not even reveal how they’re thinking…they put every advocate to the test.” The live feed is being carried by Reuters at this link.

Boies and Olson outside #Scotus talking to the press. twitter.com/josephax/statu… — Joseph Ax (@josephax) March 26, 2013

11:39 a.m. With arguments now completed, SCOTUSblog, via its Twitter feed, is predicting that the Supreme Court will neither uphold nor strike down Proposition 8 — “Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.”

11:32 a.m. Much of the discussion has centered on the question of the effects on children of having same-sex parents. Justice Antonin Scalia noted that there’s “considerable disagreement” over this question. “Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child?”, he said, according to Bloomberg News. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not.”

11:28 a.m.

SCOTUS Breyer, Kagan + Ginsburg question Prop. 8 argument gay unions interfere with goal of marriage: procreation. ow.ly/jqK7C — JamesVGrimaldi (@JamesVGrimaldi) March 26, 2013

11:20 a.m. From the Wall Street Journal’s live coverage:

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominated the questioning at the end of Mr. Cooper’s argument time. Each of the three justices questioned the argument that same-sex marriage interferes with a traditional goal of marriage: procreation.

11:14 a.m. SCOTUSblog is back with another update from inside the courtroom. Blog founder Tom Goldstein is taking a strong stand, saying there are not five votes to strike down Prop. 8. He was one of the few observers to call the Obamacare cases correctly.

There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 26, 2013

11:04 a.m. Arguments are nearing the one-hour mark. The Court announced on March 19 that audiotapes of today’s arguments will be released in short order, no later than 1 p.m. this afternoon, according to the announcement (via SCOTUSblog). Visit the Court’s website at www.supremecourt.gov to access the materials. (Update 11:10 a.m. – Chief Justice Roberts has allotted a few more minutes to the parties.)

10:59 a.m. Here’s a shot of the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, shortly before the start of oral arguments this morning:

The first picture of the #Prop8 plaintiffs in the Supreme Court today, up at @buzzfeed: bit.ly/11GYwKH #SCOTUS — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 26, 2013

10:57 a.m. The Wall Street Journal has some of the details on Chief Justice John Roberts’s comments during this morning’s oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry:

Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether Mr. Cooper’s clients were any different from any other citizens of California to be able to defend Prop 8, when the state’s elected officials refused to do so. Mr. Cooper argued that the California Supreme Court had argued that the citizens had a vital interest to have the law defended and had agreed his clients could do so, since the state was refusing to defend the initiative approved by voters.

10:54 a.m. Here’s the link to the full Bloomberg News story by Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr, reporting on Justice Kennedy’s remarks.

10:46 We’re waiting on more details as reporters emerge from the arguments to report on the proceedings. This is one exchange we’ll be looking for more on:

U.S. Chief Justice Roberts, midway into gay marriage arguments, raises doubts about California case #breaking #Prop8 — Reuters Top News (@Reuters) March 26, 2013

10:44 a.m. Bloomberg News’s Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr report that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in early questioning, “suggested that children of same-sex couples suffer an “immediate legal injury” from California’s ban. ‘They want their parents to have full recognition and status,’ Kennedy said. ‘The voices of those children’ is important, he suggested.”

10:40 a.m. Here’s a BREAKING update from SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed –

Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 26, 2013

10:25 a.m.

If a history of discrimination were sufficient to justify its perpetual existence, as Proponents argue, our public schools, drinking fountains, and swimming pools would still be segregated by race, our government workplaces and military institutions would still be largely off-limits to one sex–and to gays and lesbians, and marriage would still be unattainable for interracial couples. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men, and lesbians from the most important relationship in life.

‘In respect of all civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.’ Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896)

–Hollingsworth v. Perry, Brief For Respondents

10:21 a.m.

The arguments this week pose an unusually stark choice among the radically different paths of heroism, restraint, not deciding and minimalism. The lawyers will be offering some highly technical arguments. But the competing analogies, and history’s likely verdict, loom large in the background. — Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley Professor at Harvard Law School, writing for Bloomberg View.

10:07 a.m. Bloomberg News is reporting that oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Texas are underway.

10:00 a.m. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs challenging California’s Proposition 8 have a lot to do with the attention that’s been focused on the case over the past three years–Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Legal veterans, both, they were unlikely allies, it seemed, when they first emerged as partners on the case in 2009, given their differing political views. The two had faced each other in Bush v. Gore. But as The American Lawyer reported in “Marriage Brokers,” a March 2011 profile (subscription required) of the lawyers and the case, the pairing was “a culmination of a professional and personal relationship that bloomed over the past decade.”

As Ross Todd reported then, “The case is the most closely watched that either lawyer has handled since their election showdown. And, one way or the other, it will shape their professional legacies.”

Olson, a legendary Supreme Court attorney, now stands before the Justices to argue the case for the plaintiffs.

“Lawyers sometimes get caught up in what they want to accomplish and what their goals are,” he has said. “We represent four people whose lives are in our hands, in a sense. We want them to have their goal. We want them to be married and to be treated as equals in California…We can’t forget that we’re representing human beings.”

9:40 a.m. Who’s arguing the case against same-sex marriage rights?

Charles (Chuck) Cooper, the founder and chairman of Washington, D.C.-based litigation boutique Cooper & Kirk, is the attorney for the sponsors in Hollingsworth v. Perry . He is a champion of conservative causes, the Wall Street Journal notes, “including preserving gun rights and limiting affirmative action and gay rights.”

A graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, Cooper was a clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (1978-79) and to Judge Paul Roney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1977-78).

“Chuck is a traditionalist,” Kenneth Starr told the Wall Street Journal. “[He] has great and abiding respect for traditions embodied in law—a historic position in American jurisprudence.”

9:27 a.m. There are just over 30 minutes to go before the Court opens for business. A procedural note, via SCOTUSblog:

At 10 a.m. on both Tuesday, March 26 and Wednesday, March 27 we expect opinions argued in cases… Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe previews the case here.

9:13 a.m. “The Phelps family has arrived,” reports Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed, via Twitpic. Phelps patriarch Fred Phelps, Sr., who heads the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, is a staunch gay marriage opponent. Follow Geidner’s Twitter stream for frequent photo updates.

The Phelps family has arrived. #SCOTUS twitpic.com/ceihm6

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) March 26, 2013

9:09 a.m. Lawyers Ted Olson (left) and David Boies are on the way to the courthouse. Olson is arguing against Prop 8 today.

On the way to #Scotus #time4marriage twitter.com/BoutrousTed/st…

— Ted Boutrous (@BoutrousTed) March 26, 2013

And the New York Times’ Adam Liptak reports the reporters are getting restless.

The ordinarily sleepy #scotus pressroom is as crowded and anxious as a European train station in wartime

— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) March 26, 2013

8:43 a.m. The wait is almost over for everyone standing on line at the Supreme Court this morning. Spotted among the crowd was director Rob Reiner (click here for a photo), as AP legal affairs reporter Mark Sherman noted via Twitter:

Actor-director Rob Reiner at the head of line for gay marriage argument. Must have missed him waiting out front all weekend. #gaymarriage

— Mark Sherman (@shermancourt) March 26, 2013

Reiner is one of the founders of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage. “I was raised in a political family,” he told the Huffington Postin March of last year. “Civil rights issues were talked about around my kitchen table. People say, ‘Do you remember where you were when President Kennedy died?’ Well, I remember where I was when Medgar Evers died. This was something I was raised in. [Gay rights] is an extension of the civil rights movement. There are basic civil rights denied to people.”

8:20 a.m. A big development in this debate in recent weeks has been the increasing support for gay marriage, notably among Republican lawmakers. As Bloomberg News reports, two Democratic senators have joined the “growing and bipartisan chorus of support” for same-sex marriage. Saying it is the “fair and right thing to do,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia expressed his support on Monday. Late last week, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri became the second sitting U.S. Senator in recent weeks to endorse gay marriage. “I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love,” McCaskill wrote on her Tumblr page. (McCaskill’s statement follows an announcement by Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio earlier in March that he supports same-sex marriage. Noting that his son, Will, told his parents that he is gay two years ago, Portman admitted his stance “isn’t how I’ve always felt.”)

7:55 a.m. Welcome to Day One of the Supreme Court oral arguments in this week’s landmark gay marriage cases – Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. This is your blog to all the action. Reload this page throughout the day for our latest updates.

We’ll be aggregating the best coverage from across the Bloomberg media universe, as well as from other news outlets, the blogosphere and social media channels. And we’ll do the same on Wednesday in U.S. v. Windsor.

Up first shortly after 10 a.m. ET Tuesday is Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the court will consider whether there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. The case stems from California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in that state.

Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr has outlined the issues in both cases here. Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia spoke with SCOTUSblog* founder and noted Supreme Court attorney Tom Goldstein – watch the video interview here.

Dimitra Kessenides is an editor and blogger with the multimedia team at Bloomberg Law.

*Bloomberg Law is a sponsor of SCOTUSblog.

Original post is Live Blog: Tuesday’s Gay Marriage Arguments at Supreme Court by Political Capital.

Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Justin Kenny of Akron, Ohio holds a modified Stars and Stripes flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC.

That’s the percentage of Americans who have a favorable view of the Supreme Court, according to the Pew Research Center.

That compares with 31 percent who have an unfavorable view of the high court, according to interviews conducted March 13-17.

The public’s view of the Supreme Court is near a quarter-century low of 51 percent set last summer, when it upheld the core of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul. In the wake of that ruling, the high court’s approval rating plunged among Republicans, who opposed the overhaul, and rose among Democrats.

Forty-seven percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, according to Pew’s most recent surveys.

The Supreme Court this week is considering same-sex marriage for the first time. It will hear arguments today on a California ballot measure, passed by voters in 2008, that prohibited same-sex marriage. The court will hear arguments tomorrow on the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions. The court will decide the cases by June.

The California ballot measure banning gay marriage has lost support in public opinion polls, Bloomberg’s Alison Vekshin reported yesterday. Dozens of people, some of them hired by interest groups, lined up outside the Supreme Court days ago in hopes of securing a chance to witness the arguments, Bloomberg’s Nick Taborek reported.

This week’s arguments may yield insight into whether the Supreme Court “cares what big business thinking about gay marriage,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Paul Barrett wrote. Companies including Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc. filed briefs in support of same-sex marriage.

Original post is Bloomberg by the Numbers: 52 by Political Capital.

Photograph by Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Marriage equality supporters take part in a march and rally ahead of U.S. Supreme Court arguments on legalizing same-sex marriage in New York on March 24, 2013.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia has a statement today:

“I support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do.”

He said so on Facebook.

“Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone,”’ said Warner, who had signed on to an amicus brief opposing the Defense of Marriage Act being argued in the Supreme Court this week.

“I was proud to be the first Virginia governor to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBT state workers,” Warner said in his statement today. “In 2010, I supported an end to the military’s `Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and earlier this month I signed an amicus brief urging the repeal of DOMA. I believe we should continue working to expand equal rights and opportunities for all Americans.”

Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in the 1990s, also recently called for its repeal.

Original post is Warner: ‘Marriage Equality’ Fair, Right by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

Hollingsworth v. Perry Plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, left, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, right, along with other family members climb the steps of the National Archive in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2013, a day before the oral argument in the Hollingsworth v. Perry Supreme Court case, which could end California’s discriminatory Proposition 8 legislation banning same-sex marriage in the state.

Several scenarios emerge when assessing the likely outcome of two high profile same-sex marriage cases being argued before the Supreme Court this week. Among the possibilities is that the Court will find a way to avoid the core issue of legalizing gay marriage.

“They have off-ramps,” Tom Goldstein of Washington, D.C.’s Goldstein & Russell and founder of SCOTUS Blog* told Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia. “So that the Proposition 8 case [Hollingsworth v. Perry, scheduled for arguments on Tuesday] asks the court to decide a really fundamental question about whether there’s a right to gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act case [U.S. v. Windsor] the next day challenges the constitutionality of the federal law that says federal benefits only go to heterosexual marriages. But the justices in either case could decide, ‘We don’t have the power to decide those issues.’ They could say that the parties in front of them are the wrong ones. And they have in fact directed the litigants in the case to brief that question for them. So it’s clear they have their finger on the trigger of deciding either the big question or deciding they actually don’t want to have anything to do with them.”

Goldstein, for one, says the cases are too close to call. “The country has moved incredibly quickly in favor of recognizing that there should be equal treatment for same sex and opposite sex marriages. But the issue is that the Supreme Court moves much more slowly than the rest of the country. It’s conservative both in its ideology but also in its disposition, it doesn’t like to move too fast.”

SCOTUSblog details the litigants in each case here.

*Bloomberg Law is a sponsor of SCOTUSblog.

Original post is Gay Marriage at Supreme Court: A Viewer’s Guide by Political Capital.