Staying out of the national debate over guns, the Supreme Court today declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home. The decision to pass on the issue came in a challenge to a New York state law that requires those who want to carry a concealed handgun to show they have a special reason for a license. Opponents of the law argue that the right to bear arms is not limited to the right to keep a gun at home. On SCOTUSblog, legal commentators suggested the case would have been a good one for the court to consider since there is a clear split among federal appeals courts on whether constitutional gun rights extend beyond the home.

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Before getting to the merits of the law, though, the justices wrestled with standing and jurisdiction issues now that the government is no longer defending the law and a group of House members is standing in its place. Allowing the House group to defend the law is "very strange" said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while others said the court should not act when original parties in litigation end up on the same side. The government argued that the court does have jurisdiction because it has continued the appeal to show "respect" for Congress. On the issue of the law’s constitutionality, supporters of the law argued that Congress is entitled to establish uniform rules for federal benefits. Opponents argued the bill discriminates against same-sex couples and inserts the federal government into an issue traditionally reserved for the states. The Blog of Legal Times looks at the issues.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices seemed divided on the constitutionality of the ban along ideological lines but several also expressed doubt whether the petitioners defending the ban have standing to appeal. One justice went even further suggesting that the case should be dismissed given that the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is too new to be reliable. Court followers predict the justices will go one of two ways: ruling that the petitioners lack standing or dismissing the case because of an inability to reach a majority.

The Supreme Court today was to hear oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of an Arizona law that requires all residents prove their citizenship before registering to vote in a national election. The Tennessean reports that the court’s ruling will impact four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — that have similar requirements, and 12 other states contemplating such legislation. The federal government argues that states do not have the right to impose requirements on registering to vote beyond those imposed at the federal level. The state argues that voter fraud, including by undocumented individuals, is a challenge it should be allowed to address.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced her plans to remain on the U.S. Supreme Court at least through next year, the ABA Journal reports. Gingsburg, who is 79 years old, told the New Yorker, “It’s not this year. You can never tell when you’re my age,” Ginsburg said. “But, as long as I think I have the candlepower, I will do it. And I figure next year for certain. After that, who knows?”

The Obama Administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief Thursday evening unequivocally calling on the Supreme Court justices to strike down California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure banning gay marriage. It marks the first time a U.S. president has urged the high court to expand the right of gays and lesbians to wed. The brief is not legally binding, but the Commercial Appeal reports that the government’s opinion could carry weight with the Supreme Court when it hears oral arguments on Prop 8 in late March.

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case challenging the part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that forces places with a history of discrimination, mainly in the Deep South, to get approval before they make any changes in the way elections are held. The lawsuit from Shelby County, Ala., claims the “dire local conditions” that once justified federal oversight of elections no longer exist. The Commercial Appeal has the story.

U.S. Supreme Court justices argued Tuesday whether to let police take DNA without a warrant from those arrested in order to use it to solve old cases, according to Knoxnews. In the case Maryland v. King, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault. Police took a cheek swap of King’s DNA, which identified him in the 2003 rape and robbery of a 53-year-old woman, and he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. However, the state Court of Appeals said warrantless DNA samples violated King’s rights and that he had “a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches.” The court is reviewing that ruling and will make a decision later this year.

The U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal of a decision upholding a century-old ban on certain corporate campaign contributions, WRCB TV3 reports. The court's 2010 Citizens United decision struck down a prohibition against corporate spending on campaign activities by independent groups but left untouched the ban on direct contributions to candidates. That ban remains unchanged. A week ago, however, justices did decide to hear a challenge to how much an individual can give to political campaigns.

In a preview of a major constitutional showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court over same-sex marriage, the Obama Administration on Friday filed the first in a series of briefs on the issue. The high court will hear oral arguments next month on the Defense of Marriage Act, which for federal purposes, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The effect, the administration says, is to deny financial benefits to legally wed gay and lesbian couples. WCYB News has more.