WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear an important case about whether states must count only those who are eligible to vote, rather than the total population, when drawing electoral districts for their legislatures. 
 
 The case from Texas could be significant for states with large immigrant populations, including Latinos who are children or not citizens. The plaintiffs claim that redrawing electoral districts based on the population of citizens and non-citizens alike violates the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. 
 
 The challengers claim that taking account of total population can lead to vast differences in the number of voters in particular districts, along with corresponding differences in the power of those voters. 
 
 The Project on Fair Representation is funding the lawsuit filed by two Texas residents. The group opposes racial and ethnic classifications and has been behind Supreme Court challenges to affirmative action and the federal Voting Rights Act. 
 
 The court's 1964 ruling in Reynolds v. Sims established the one person, one vote principle and means that a state's legislative districts must have roughly the same number of people. But the court has never determined whether the state must count everyone or just eligible voters — or have some leeway to choose. 
 
 A ruling for the challengers would shift power to rural areas and away from urban districts in which there are large populations of immigrants who are not eligible to vote because they are children or not citizens. 
 
 The case brought by Texas residents Sue Evenwel and Edwared Pfenniger highlights a mainly rural district northeast of Houston that has 584,000 eligible voters, while a neighboring urban district has 372,000 eligible voters. 
 
 The result is that voters in the urban district have more sway than their rural counterparts, Project on Fair Representation president Edward Blum said. Several conservative groups also are supporting the Supreme Court challenge. 
 
 Then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, signed the redistricting plan into law. The state urged the justices to reject the case because "multiple precedents from this court confirm that total population is a permissible" way to draw districts. 
 
 Back in 2001, Justice Clarence Thomas urged his colleagues to settle the issue. Thomas issued a rare dissent when the court chose not to hear a case from Houston. "We have never determined the relevant 'population' that states and localities must equally distribute among their districts," Thomas wrote. 
 
 The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, 14-940, will be argued in the fall. ||||| The high court is saving the high drama for the end of its term. 
 
 As June dwindles, five cases are left for the Supreme Court to decide — including one that could legalize same-sex marriage across the country. 
 
 After announcing two decisions on Thursday, the court is scheduled to announce more decisions Friday and Monday — and it could add days beyond that. There's no indication which decisions will be released on which days. 
 
 Here's a rundown of what's left to settle: 
 
 Same-sex marriage 
 
 In a landmark decision, the court will confront two questions. The first is whether states can ban same-sex marriage. The second is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. 
 
 All eyes are on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote three of the court's most important opinions on gay rights. At an oral argument in April, Kennedy asked tough questions of both sides, and at one point he said "it's very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we know better" what defines marriage than centuries of tradition limiting it to the union of a man and a woman. 
 
 Listen to the Supreme Court's Arguments 
 
 Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Google Plus 
 
 Embed How Will the Supreme Court Rule on Same-Sex Marriage? 2:53 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 Lethal injection 
 
 The justices must decide a challenge to the drug protocol several states use by to execute inmates. 
 
 The case is from Oklahoma. The question is whether the sedative midazolam puts condemned inmates into a coma-like state, protecting them from cruel and unusual punishment while two other drugs are given, or whether it merely paralyzes them while conscious, inflicting serious pain. 
 
 Justice Elena Kagan pointed out at the oral argument that the third drug in the Oklahoma protocol, potassium chloride, has been likened to being burned alive. 
 
 Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Google Plus 
 
 Embed What's a Death Row Inmate's Final Day Like? 0:42 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 Redistricting 
 
 The court will decide an issue that goes to the very founding of the U.S.: Who controls the creation of congressional districts? 
 
 Arizona voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2000 stripping the Legislature of the power to draw districts and giving to an independent redistricting commission. It's meant to avoid "gerrymandering" — the habit of legislators to draw bizarrely shaped districts that give their parties' candidates the best shot at winning. 
 
 The Legislature went to court, pointing out that Article I of the Constitution specifies that "the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof" — and that only Congress, not state bodies, can change that. 
 
 Play Facebook 
 
 Twitter 
 
 Google Plus 
 
 Embed Supreme Court Gerrymandering Decision Could Doom Political Reform 2:27 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog 
 
 Violent crime 
 
 The court could give thousands of federal prisoners new hope and potentially hamstring prosecutors in ruling on a federal law that sets mandatory minimum sentences for federal firearms offenders who already have three convictions for "violent felonies." 
 
 Advocates say the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutional, arguing that it's too vague in defining a "violent felony," sending away minor offenders for years. 
 
 Law enforcement — noting that the case involves an alleged neo-Nazi accused of manufacturing napalm — says it needs the leeway to interpret the law broadly, not only to get potentially dangerous criminals off the streets but also to use as bargaining chips in plea negotiations. 
 
 Power plant pollution 
 
 Three cases being considered together ask the court to force the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the economic cost of complying with regulations limiting emissions from power plants before it issues any rules. 
 
 During oral arguments in March, Justice Stephen Breyer said cost should logically be a factor in such decisions, observing: "It begins to look a little irrational to say, 'I'm not going to take it into account at all.'" 
 
 But the government argued that the Clean Air Act made no reference to costs when it required the EPA should to adopt "appropriate and necessary" emissions rules. 
 
 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, picking up on that argument, asked lawyers for the states and industry groups pushing the case whether the court has ever required the EPA to consider costs." 
 
 "Is there any such decision?" she asked, to which the plaintiffs' lawyers acknowledged that they couldn't cite one.
– We don't know which rulings will come when, but starting today through Monday (and perhaps beyond that), the Supreme Court is scheduled to let the hammer fall on seven major cases that will reverberate through the nation, NBC News reports. A quick rundown of what's on the docket: The court's stance on gay marriage is perhaps the most anticipated decision, and the justices have to consider two things: whether states can ban same-sex marriages, and also whether they have to recognize such unions legally carried out in other states. The fate of ObamaCare is also a high-profile case in front of the bench, which could end up costing 34 states their subsidies under the Affordable Care Act because they don't have their own health care insurance exchanges. Insurance experts warn that ObamaCare would go into a "death spiral" if the court rules against federal subsidies. The case against lethal injection, spurred by an Oklahoma man's botched execution, puts the drug midazolam on the hot seat, asking if the drug does what it should—puts a prisoner into a "coma-like state" so two other drugs can finish the job—or if it merely paralyzes the inmate and forces them to endure the pain of their own death. How the court defines redistricting rules—and whether states must count only eligible voters or the entire population when drawing congressional districts—as well as whether or not to greenlight federal violent-crime laws that impose mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of three felonies, are being mulled. Also set to be finalized: decisions on whether to permit lawsuits under the Fair Housing Act, even if discrimination was not intended, and a trio of cases grouped together that asks the court to make the EPA consider economic costs before forcing power plants to control their emissions.