New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday added 11 cases to its docket, including ones on redistricting, judicial elections and discrimination in housing and employment.

The court, which will return to the bench on Monday, took no action on seven petitions urging it to hear cases on same-sex marriage. The cases it did agree to hear will be argued this winter and are likely to be decided by the end of June.

The court will continue to add cases in coming weeks and remains likely to accept one or more same-sex marriage cases.

The redistricting case will consider the fate of an independent commission created by Arizona voters in 2000 in an effort to make the process of drawing congressional district lines less partisan. The court’s decision is likely to affect a similar body in California.

The Arizona commission has five members, with two each chosen by Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The final member is chosen by the other four. Republican lawmakers have complained that the commission’s latest efforts favored Democrats.

The Republican-led State Legislature sued, saying that the voters did not have the power to strip elected lawmakers of their power to draw district lines. They pointed to a provision of the federal Constitution that says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof.”

A divided three-judge panel of the Federal District Court in Arizonaruled in favor of the commission, saying that the Constitution’s reference to the “Legislature” included ballot initiatives like the 2000 measure.

“The elections clause does not prohibit a state from vesting the power to conduct congressional redistricting elsewhere within its legislative powers,” Judge G. Murray Snow wrote for the majority.

In urging the justices to hear the case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314, the State Legislature said the 2000 initiative was a “radical effort to ‘de-politicize’ redistricting” that cannot “be reconciled with the Constitution’s deliberate decision to vest such responsibilities in the most politically accountable branch of state government.”

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a case on judicial elections, Williams-Yulee v. the Florida Bar, No. 13-1499. It is a challenge to bans on personal solicitations of campaign contributions by candidates for judicial office.

Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges, and 30 of them ban personal requests for money. In upholding Florida’s ban, the state’s Supreme Court said it was needed to protect the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system.

Federal appeals courts are split on the issue. Four of them, collectively covering 23 states, have struck down solicitation bans based on the First Amendment.

The new case involves Lanell Williams-Yulee, who was a candidate for the county court in Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa. She was reprimanded and made to pay $1,860 in court costs for signing a fund-raising letter.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear her case, Ms. Williams-Yulee’s lawyers argued that the solicitation bans are an imperfect way to ensure judges’ impartiality. In barring not only one-on-one requests but also mass mailings and speeches to large groups, her brief said, the solicitation bans censor speech that is unlikely to give rise to judicial corruption.

The bans also do too little, the brief continued, by allowing candidates to raise money through campaign committees and then personally thank their donors.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a pair of discrimination cases. One of them, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, No. 13-1371, seems likely to produce a ruling on a question that civil rights advocates have worked hard to keep away from the justices: whether claims under the Fair Housing Act require proof of intentional discrimination.

The court had twice agreed in recent years to resolve whether proof of “disparate impact,” shown through statistics, is instead sufficient to establish discrimination. But both of those cases were withdrawn before the justices could rule.

The new case was brought by a Texas group favoring integrated housing. It contends that state officials gave a disproportionate share of federal low-income housing tax credits to people in minority neighborhoods.

Texas officials told the justices that “this case presents an opportunity for this court finally to resolve whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.”

The Supreme Court also agreed to decide whether Abercrombie & Fitch, the clothing chain, violated discrimination laws by declining to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company has since modified its dress code.

The question for the justices is whether the applicant, Samantha Elauf, had to make a specific request for a religious accommodation. The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver,ruled for the company because Ms. Elauf, who wore a head scarf to her interview, did not make such a request. “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’” Judge Jerome A. Holmes wrote for the court.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued on Ms. Elauf’s behalf, said she was not hired because her appearance clashed with the company’s dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

The company said it had no reason to know that Ms. Elauf’s head scarf was required by her faith. In its brief in the case, E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, No. 14-86, it said job applicants should not be allowed “to remain silent and to assume that the employer recognizes the religious motivations behind their fashion decisions.”