A federal judge upheld Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriages Wednesday, as well as the state's refusal to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states.

Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

A proposed federal regulation requiring employers to provide legally-married same-sex couples with benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act regardless of their employees' state of residence could help clear up some complications caused by conflicting federal and state laws.

Utah's decision to ask the nation's highest court to review a federal appeals court ruling in favor of gay marriage nudges the issue closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the U.S Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act exactly one year ago, it stopped short of saying states cannot ban gay marriage.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked a federal judge on Friday to place on hold any future order she may make that would strike down the state's ban on gay marriage, the second time this week the Republican expressed doubt in the state's chances to succeed in defending the law.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a state law barring the consideration of race in public university admission decisions is having an immediate effect on a set of closely watched appeals involving an entirely different issue: the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans.

State Supreme Court justices heard arguments Wednesday debating what sort of domestic-partnership law would comply with the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Recent guidance issued by the Department of Labor could trigger litigation over a new concern: whether private business owners with religious objections to gay marriage can be required to extend employment benefits to their employees’ same-sex spouses in states where such unions are not recognized.

A multibillion dollar case between two giant pharmaceutical companies grappling over arcane antitrust issues has unexpectedly turned into a gay rights legal imbroglio that raises questions over whether lawyers can bounce potential jurors solely based on their sexual orientation.

When the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, it left many unanswered questions.

In a historic victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision of a federal law denying federal benefits to married gay couples and cleared the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California.

Three U.S. states and three countries have approved same-sex unions just in the two months since the Supreme Court heard arguments over gay marriage, raising questions about how the developments might affect the justices' consideration of the issue.

One of the delights of attending a bar association meeting is seeing new places.

It was a closely watched case that came to a dramatic and unexpected conclusion of questionable precedential value. Now attorneys are left pondering what effect, if any, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend will have on class-action certifications.

During heated arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court over California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the justices verbally tussled with attorneys arguing over the law’s constitutionality — but also hinted that the case could have a surprise ending.

The federal government, in addition to waging its own battle against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, has officially waded into the Supreme Court challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban, asking the justices to strike down the law, though stopping short of asking the Court to set a nationwide rule.

Justice Antonin Scalia is drawing a lot of media attention for comments he made this week as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear two same-sex marriage law challenges.

The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

The running fight over gay marriage is shifting from the ballot box to the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to ignore the front of the line in the Defense of Marriage Act petitions for certiorari and instead agree to hear the last one filed.

With attorneys still analyzing the health care ruling and the other big decisions from last term, the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing for a new term with even more major issues on its docket, from affirmative action to the standards of proof for class certification.

So if the Supreme Court takes public opinion into consideration -- as some pundits assert was the case in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s switched vote on the health care decision -- what does that mean for the upcoming cases involving same-sex marriage rights?

The federal Defense of Marriage Act could not be enforced to deny a federal employee the right to have her same-sex spouse covered under her health insurance plan, a U.S. District Court in California has ruled in granting summary judgment.