Speaking with young students in Denver, Sotomayor noted that some people asked whether authorities had done enough to track the two suspects, both ethnic Chechens.

“Is that profiling? Could be,” she said. “Is it something you just can’t ignore? Maybe sometimes not.”

Sotomayor, who was in Denver for the dedication of a new state courts building, said police who rely only on racial profiling to decide if someone committed a crime are usually wrong. But she said investigators need to pay attention to some “indicators” about suspects, without saying what they might be.

“It’s a fine line society walks in trying to be fair,” she said.

Sotomayor, who became the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court when she took office in 2009, said she was the subject of racial stereotyping after her appointment, and it was hurtful.

Her biggest challenge was dealing with other people’s low expectations, she said, “and having fun proving them wrong.”

Sotomayor took questions from about 100 eighth-, ninth- and 10th-graders before ceremonies to open the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center.

Shortly after Michael Bender, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, introduced her, Sotomayor stepped off the speaker’s platform and roamed the aisles around the students, answering questions eye-to-eye and engaging them in banter.

She frequently referred to her new memoir, “My Beloved World,” and urged the children to dream big and explore career possibilities, even if they seem intimidating.

RELATED: In Memoir, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reveals childhood struggles and fighting spirit

“When I was your age, I didn’t know there was a Supreme Court,” she said. She said she learned about the legal system by watching “Perry Mason” television dramas.

She promised her young audience that if any of them became a justice, “I’ll come and swear you in.”

The new building was named for Ralph Carr, Colorado’s governor from 1939 to 1943, who spoke out for the constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans who were confined to internment camps during World War II.

The $258 million building houses courtrooms for the state Supreme Court and state Court of Appeals as well as offices of the attorney general, the state public defender and court administrators.

RELATED: Sonia Sotomayor’s “My Beloved World” becomes a New York Times bestseller

While praising the center, Sotomayor looked up from her notes and said with a smile, “The kids in this audience today won’t remember a time in their lives when this building didn’t exist.”

On Thursday night, after speaking at a Metropolitan State University of Denver gymnasium about her struggles and achievements, Sotomayor roamed the aisles flanked by her security detail, shaking hands, posing for photos with children and repeatedly saying: “Thank you. Thank you very much. You’re being so nice.”

The justices on Monday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that blocked parts of the law. Justice Antonin Scalia voted to hear the state’s appeal.

The law’s purpose was to reduce the “number of illegal aliens” in Alabama.

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said immigration law primarily is the responsibility of the federal government and that the state lacked the authority to enforce the challenged provisions. The appeals court ruling followed last year’s Supreme Court ruling that blocked some parts of Arizona’s immigration law.

RELATED: Alabama’s Latinos on edge as immigration law sits in legal limbo 

The 63-page report, issued Sunday after months of investigation, is certain to provide fodder for Republicans seeking to challenge Perez at his Senate confirmation hearing Thursday.

The GOP lawmakers accuse Perez of misusing his power last year to persuade the city of St. Paul, Minn., to withdraw a housing discrimination case before it could be heard by the Supreme Court. In exchange, the Justice Department agreed not to intervene in two whistleblower cases against St. Paul that could have won up to $200 million for taxpayers.

Perez has defended his reason for wanting St. Paul to drop its case, telling investigators that he feared an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court would jeopardize the government’s use of statistics to win housing discrimination cases. The Justice Department also says Perez got proper clearance and made the deal in the best interests of the nation.

But Republicans say the deal was dubious, that Perez misled senior officials about his intentions, and that he tried to cover up the true reason for his decision not to intervene in the whistleblower cases.

“This offer was inappropriate and potentially violated Perez’s duty of loyalty to his client, the United States,” said the report from Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, California Rep. Darrell Issa and Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte.

Issa is chairman of the House Oversight Committee, while Goodlatte heads the House Judiciary Committee. Grassley is top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Top Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued their own report on the investigation Sunday, writing that Perez “acted professionally to advance the interests of civil rights and effectively combat the scourge of housing discrimination.”

The Justice Department also defended Perez in a statement, saying litigation decisions made by the department “were in the best interests of the United States and were consistent with the department’s legal, ethical and professional responsibility obligations.”

“In resolving False Claims Act matters, the Department has broad discretion to consider legal, factual and policy factors,” the statement said. “The decision to decline to intervene in these cases followed an examination of such factors and permitted the relators to continue to pursue their claims against the city.”

The Republican report cites documents that suggest Perez’s decision frustrated and confused career attorneys at Justice who initially wanted to join the whistleblower cases against St. Paul. These attorneys described the department’s change of heart as “weirdness,” `’ridiculous” and a case of “cover your head pingpong.”

The report also quotes the handwritten notes from one Justice lawyer who wrote after a January 2012 conference call: “Message from Perez. When you are working on memos make sure you don’t talk about Sup. Ct. case.”

But Democrats claim Perez was up front about using the strategy and cleared it with ethics and professional responsibility officials before it was finalized. Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli told investigators it was common Justice Department practice to encourage parties not to pursue Supreme Court cases with poor fact patterns that could lead to adverse national interests.

“Instead of identifying inappropriate conduct by Mr. Perez, it appears that the accusations against him are part of a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against discrimination that Mr. Perez was protecting,” said the staff memo issued Sunday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. John Conyers, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal law allows whistleblower cases alleging misuse of public funds to be brought by private parties. If they win, they can keep a percentage of the proceeds while the government gets the rest. The Justice Department intervenes in about 22 percent of federal whistleblower lawsuits, a move that can give the case a better chance of winning. The department has recovered more than $13 billion from such cases over the past four years, according to Justice Department statistics.

After the Justice Department declined to join the whistleblower cases against St. Paul, one of them was later dismissed. The second is still being litigated by a private plaintiff.

The visit by the first Latina Supreme Court justice was an unscheduled stop on her book tour.

Sotomayor greeted a large crowd of students and teachers Tuesday morning as she entered the Law School of the University of Puerto Rico, where she spoke about her memoir, “My Beloved World.” The book gives a personal account of her rise from an impoverished New York City tenement to becoming a federal judge in 1992.

Before talking about her book, Sotomayor moved her chair to the edge of the stage to be closer to the audience, which applauded her gesture. During the two-hour discussion with Puerto Rican writer Mayra Santos-Febres, Sotomayor said it was important that her readers get to know and understand Puerto Rico.

“I wanted to introduce them to our culture,” she said. “That’s a theme I had to include in every page of the book.”

The self-described “Nuyorican,” or Puerto Rican from New York, later met with the general public at the Plaza Las Americas mall, where she signed copies of the book.

As she strode onstage in a bright orange jacket, Sotomayor waved to the crowd below and smiled.

RELATED: Sonia Sotomayor’s “My Beloved World” becomes a New York Times bestseller

“It’s important to be here, because this is the place of the people,” she said in Spanish as the crowd cheered and held cameras aloft to take pictures and videos.

First in line to meet her was Karlos Rijos, a 67-year-old retired business owner from San Juan who arrived at 6 a.m. and waited seven hours for Sotomayor to arrive.

“I admire women who rise a lot higher than many men,” he said. “She rose up from nothing. You have to admire that.”

Event organizers warned that Sotomayor would not be taking pictures with her fans, but the justice made an exception when 11-year-old Annette Margret Laureano was ushered first onstage. She had convinced her father to drive from the northeast coast of Fajardo to the capital of San Juan so she could meet the justice.

Laureano adjusted her bangs and gave her father a nervous smile before she walked onstage to receive a hug, kiss and encouraging words from Sotomayor.

“That she’s a judge, Hispanic and a woman gives me a lot of hope,” Laureano said. “I’ve always wanted to be a judge, but she has further inspired me … She overcame a lot of things.”

Several people in the crowd said they identified with Sotomayor because they, too, were born to Puerto Rican parents and grew up in housing projects in New York’s borough of the Bronx. Among them was Ramon Zapata, 61, who now lives in Puerto Rico and owns a remodeling company.

RELATED: Analysis-Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s increasingly visible Supreme Court role

“She has been an inspiration to me and to my two daughters,” Zapata said. “I literally fell from my chair when I heard they had appointed a Puerto Rican, from the Bronx no less, to the Supreme Court.”

Before Sotomayor began signing books, she introduced her mother, Celina, to the crowd, prompting someone to yell, “Congratulations on producing such a success!” Celina Sotomayor smiled as her daughter also thanked her and her grandmother for their support.

“This book was written by all of you,” Sotomayor said, thanking grandparents in the crowd, some of whom were then hugged by their nieces or nephews.

Jose Antonio Rodriguez Sotomayor, 86, smiled as he heard those words. In his right hand, he clutched a cane, and in his left, a sepia-colored picture showing a relative of Sonia Sotomayor that they have in common. He was later introduced to Sonia Sotomayor’s mother, who he had not previously met.

“She saw the picture and was so happy,” Rodriguez said.

Sonia Sotomayor’s mother, a nurse, is from San German, a rural town near the southwest coast. Her father, who died when she was 9, was from San Juan. Many of Sotomayor’s relatives, including Rodriguez, live around the island’s northwest coast.

Sotomayor previously visited Puerto Rico in May 2012 and in December 2009, shortly after being named justice.

On Tuesday, Sotomayor said that many people have told her they visited Puerto Rico for the first time after reading her book.

“You should make me Puerto Rico’s tourism minister,” she joked.

Addressing two pivotal legal issues, one on affirmative action and a second on voting rights, a divided Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions.

In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity. Just this past week, justices signaled their interest in scrutinizing affirmative action very intensely, expanding their review as well to a Michigan law passed by voters that bars “preferential treatment” to students based on race. Separately in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations – in the South, particularly – have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted.

The questions are apt as the United States closes in on a demographic tipping point, when nonwhites will become a majority of the nation’s population for the first time. That dramatic shift is expected to be reached within the next generation, and how the Supreme Court rules could go a long way in determining what civil rights and equality mean in an America long divided by race.

The court’s five conservative justices seem ready to declare a new post-racial moment, pointing to increased levels of voter registration and turnout among blacks to show that the South has changed. Lower federal courts just in the past year had seen things differently, blunting voter ID laws and other election restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in South Carolina, Texas and Florida, which they saw as discriminatory.

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in oral arguments earlier this year, suggesting that it was the high court’s responsibility to overturn voting protections overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 2006.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, part of the court’s more liberal wing, countered that while conventional discriminatory tactics may have faded, new ones have emerged. “Congress said up front: We know that the (voter) registration is fine. That is no longer the problem. But the discrimination continues in other forms,” she said.

The legal meanings of “equality,” `’racism” and “discrimination” have been in flux since at least 1883, when justices struck down a federal anti-discrimination law, calling it an unfair racial advantage for former black slaves. Today, justices face the question of whether the nation has reached equality by a 1960s definition or some new standard.

By some demographic measures, America has reached a new era. But the latest census data and polling from The Associated Press also show race and class disparities that persist.

President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black chief executive, was re-elected in November despite a historically low percentage of white supporters. He was aided by a growing bloc of blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and gays, and a disproportionate share of women, who together supported him by at least a 2-to-1 margin.

Another sign of shifting times: Among newborns, minorities outnumbered whites for the first time last year, the Census Bureau reported. “The end of the world as straight white males know it,” one newspaper headline said on the morning after the November election.

Still, issues linger by race, age and class:

-Jobs and income. Black poverty has fallen by half since 1959, to 27.6 percent, but is still nearly three times the poverty rate of whites. Black and Hispanic men are twice as likely as whites to work in the low-paying service sector. Since the 1970s, the unemployment rate for blacks has remained double that of whites.

-Wealth. The wealth gap between whites and minorities is at its widest since 1984. Predominantly younger minorities were hit hard when home prices fell, while older whites were more likely to invest in 401(k) retirement plans and stocks, which have rebounded since the recession. The median net worth of white households was $113,149 in 2009, compared with $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks.

-Class and education. By some measures, the gap between rich and poor has stretched to its widest since 1967. Globalization and automation have eliminated many mid-skill jobs, leaving a polarized pool of low-wage work and high-skill jobs requiring advanced degrees. About 40 percent of whites age 25-29 graduate from college, compared with 15 percent for Latinos and 23 percent for blacks.

-Racial bias. Prejudice against blacks worsened slightly in the four years since Obama was first elected in 2008, according to an AP poll. In all, 51 percent of Americans expressed explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in 2008. Questions designed to ferret out subconscious bias raised the proportion with anti-black sentiments to 56 percent, and the share of people expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

Roderick Harrison, a demographer who is black, says he felt pride in Obama’s re-election, which to him reaffirmed a historic achievement not only for black Americans but also a broader coalition of racially diverse groups. Still, he worries that demographic change and Obama’s success may lead to a tipping point in the opposite direction, where people in the United States are led to assume racial equality has fully arrived.

The strength of minority support behind Obama was aided by the 1965 Voting Rights Act and other protections, he said.

The term “minority” often refers to an unequal or disadvantaged status and isn’t always about numbers or counts, said Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas already have populations of racial and ethnic minorities that collectively add up to more than 50 percent. Across the U.S., more than 11 percent of counties have tipped to “majority-minority” status.

“Minority status is a matter of exclusion from full participation in society, remaining long after a nation becomes `majority minority,’” Harrison said.

To Bradley Poole, 21, a senior at the University of Texas at Austin, racial progress is measured by the little things. An advertising major, Poole became a member and then president of the school’s Black Student Alliance, seeking camaraderie after noticing he often was the only African-American in his classes.

“I definitely feel the difference,” he said.

The university automatically grants admission to the top 10 percent of students in each of the state’s high schools. That helps bring in students of different backgrounds because Texas high schools are highly racially segregated, reflecting decades of segregated neighborhoods.

In a state where blacks now make up 11.5 percent of the population and Hispanics 38 percent, the university’s enrollment of 50,000 students never rose above 3 percent to 4.5 percent black and 13 percent to 17 percent Hispanic. So in 2004 it decided to allow students who miss the 10 percent cutoff to be considered for admission based on a range of socioeconomic factors, including race.

The share of black students has since increased slightly to 6 percent, while Hispanic enrollment rose to 26 percent.

The university’s affirmative action plan is being challenged in the Supreme Court by Abigail Fisher, a white student who missed the cutoff and was rejected. Fisher says she was denied fair consideration because of her race.

A 2003 Supreme Court opinion said universities may consider race only as one of several factors to promote diversity. The court said diversity benefits everyone because in a global economy it fosters leaders who can relate to people of different backgrounds.

In the last week, justices also agreed to take up a second affirmative action case this year, deciding whether states may pass laws that restrict the use of race preferences in college admissions. That case involves an appeal to a lower court ruling that found a 2006 voter-approved ban in Michigan unconstitutional, reasoning that such bans put minorities at a disadvantage.

The justices’ decision to hear the Michigan case next fall – with their decision in the Texas case still to be announced this spring – suggests that the court will not decide in the Texas case to eliminate affirmative action programs in higher education.

In the seven or so states that enacted bans on affirmative action at their public universities, freshman enrollments of blacks and Hispanics almost always fell afterward – as much as 50 percent at UCLA and the University of California, Berkeley – although in some cases they later rebounded. Those states now include Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. A Supreme Court ruling that further restricts affirmative action could shake up college admissions policies nationwide, perhaps shifting focus to low-income students or low-performing schools.

Before opting to enroll at Texas, Poole says he considered attending a mostly white university in Iowa and a historically black college in Louisiana. The college course he now values the most: an advertising seminar that he attended along with a Hispanic, a female student-athlete and an Asian-American. No one in that class was a “minority,” he said, and there was a range of perspectives.

Outside class, Poole says his organization has experienced racial incidents. One white student ran up in “blackface” to where members were gathered on campus, daring them to respond. A legal brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on behalf of Poole’s group lists other racial incidents in recent years, some of which led to suspensions or public apologies.

“Racial diversity is a conversation we need to have,” he said.

Not since the tumultuous 1960s have U.S. ideals of equality been more closely contested. Legal analysts say a Supreme Court holding of a colorblind Constitution, either as a matter of law or practical effect, could begin to emerge in two rulings on voting rights and affirmative action due out by late June. A third ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case will come next term.

The five conservative justices who make up a majority could overturn the 2003 opinion or take a less dramatic step. The court may opt for tighter restrictions that make it difficult for colleges to consider race or rule narrowly that in a situation like Texas, its unique top 10 percent plan is enough on its own to achieve diversity.

In the court’s other racial case, a conservative majority may declare the 1965 Voting Rights Act constitutionally flawed for its focus on racism in the South but leave it up to lawmakers to sort it out.

The court could also find a less sweeping, more technical way of deciding the voting rights case, much as they did four years ago. Back then, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Congress should update the law to reflect improved conditions in the South. Congress hasn’t done so.

Prominent legal bloggers are already warning of sharp public reaction, especially if justices strike down federal voting protections.

“If the court rules in a conservative direction, this will be a pivotal year with regard to race in the Constitution and a year that could have a devastating effect on racial diversity,” adds Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school.

Has the country put its racist past behind it? That question is at the core of the challenge to the Voting Rights Act. The arguments before the court raised questions about whether new, more subtle forms of voting discrimination have taken the place of Jim Crow laws.

In 1870, the Constitution guaranteed blacks the right to vote. But for many decades afterward, whites in the post-slavery South used poll taxes and literacy tests to block African-Americans from voting.

That changed in 1965 with enactment of the Voting Rights Act, which let minorities file lawsuits against voter discrimination. Section 5 of that law went even further, requiring nine states, mostly in the South, and scores of counties and townships in seven other states, all with histories of disenfranchisement, to get federal approval before making any election change. Changes can include everything from a different poll location to a new political redistricting map.

The voting act was renewed by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years. The Justice Department and the federal courts last year used Section 5 to block voter restrictions in South Carolina, Texas and parts of Florida. That saved hundreds of thousands of votes that would otherwise have been lost in November, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Many were cast by blacks and Hispanics who turned out for Obama.

Lawyers for Shelby County, Alabama, which is challenging Section 5, say the tables have turned in a nation that is now much more racially diverse, with minority voters possibly holding an unfair advantage.

“You have a different constituency from the constituency you had in 1964,” attorney Bert Rein told the justices. “Senators who see that a very large group in the population has politically wedded themselves to Section 5 are not going to vote against it.”

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and author of Election Law Blog, says the “smart money” now is on the Supreme Court striking down Section 5, leading to consequences for minority voters such as “more brazen partisan gerrymanders, cutbacks in early voting and imposition of tougher voting and registration rules in the formerly covered jurisdictions.”

But if the court strikes down “a crown jewel of the civil rights movement,” he said, that could spark a public backlash that sends Congress back to the drawing board, with any resulting new law applying equally to all states.

—

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman and AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

“I have been fascinated by Justice Sotomayor’s role,” says political scientist Celeste Montoya, who teaches gender studies and politics at the University of Colorado-Boulder. “Sotomayor brings a sense of compassion and what comes across as a commitment to equality, but in a basic, straightforward, constitutional way,” says Montoya.

On the Prop 8 arguments, Sotomayor questioned defenders of Prop 8 on why the state of California could make a legal argument for excluding same-sex couples from getting married.

“Outside of the marriage context,” asked Justice Sotomayor during Tuesday’s arguments, “can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits?” Sotomayor questioned.

“Those lines made a profound impression on me.  She stole the show,” says Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, an attorney at Lambda Legal, the nation’s oldest legal organization advocating for gay rights. He argues Sotomayor was able to show that in essence, proponents of Prop 8 could not prove there was any harm or injury to heterosexual marriage by having same-sex marriage.

“Sotomayor played a key role in unpacking and unveiling these arguments,” says Espinoza-Madrigal.

Montoya added that during those arguments,”Sotomayor was not trying to craft new precedents or engage in radical judicial activism.  Her arguments just showed it’s increasingly hard to argue the state had a rational basis for the law,” she says.

Attorney John Treviño believes Justice Sotomayor’s experiences as a woman and as a minority inform her perspectives on the challenges facing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. “As a member of the National LGBT Bar Association and the Hispanic National Bar Association, I appreciate her insightful questions during the oral argument,” Treviño says, “and hope for a ruling that reflects her commitment to fairness.”

RELATED: In Memoir, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reveals childhood struggles and fighting spirit

Espinoza-Madrigal says Sotomayor’s performance reaffirmed his belief in the necessity for a diverse judiciary. “I was happy to see that an active bench composed of women and people of color is wrestling with these matters, and trying to interpret the constitution in a way that hopefully will be inclusive and will prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Moreover, argues Montoya, this diversity is ultimately good in reaffirming the legitimacy of the Court itself.

“It’s all about signaling.  It reaffirms that the Supreme Court is not a sacred, legal institution separate from political realities.  The different life experiences of the Justices does factor into their whole array of legal expertise,” Montoya explains.

“The people of this country look up to the Supreme Court, they want to see and feel reflected in the discourse, in the jurisprudence and in the analysis,” says Espinoza-Madrigal. “That is an important part of what is going on.”

“When the Congressional Hispanic Caucus put out their 9 principles for immigration reform and marriage equality was number two on the list – that’s a big deal,” says Duran, who co-founded a lobbying and consulting group with Pino called D&P Creative Strategies.  ”When you see that 62 percent of Latino Catholics support allowing gay couples to marry, it’s a huge shift,” Duran states, referring to polling they conducted as part of their Familia es Familia campaign, a gay rights public service campaign.

As the Supreme Court heard arguments today for and against California’s Proposition 8 - the state’s ban on same-sex marriage – the reality is that Latino public opinion – as well as the position of many Latino leaders – is increasingly supportive of gay marriage.

“When one group is denied the dignity and the right to marry, it diminishes us all,” said National Council of La Raza’s (NCLR) president and CEO Janet Murguía, standing in front of the Supreme Court today.

“What the Supreme Court will hear this week is what lower courts have already affirmed – no American should be denied equal protection under the Constitution,” stated California Democratic Congressman and Democratic Caucus chairman Xavier Becerra.

Last year the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and Pew Hispanic  found that for the first time since conducting its National Survey of Latinos, more Hispanics favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally (52 percent) than oppose it (34 percent). An ABC News election exit poll found 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they support same-sex marriage.  A recent Latino Decisions poll found 64 percent of Hispanic voters said comprehensive immigration reform should include the same rights for gay couples as heterosexual couples.

Reflecting this support, Murguía added today in the Supreme Court steps that “our policies should not separate families due to their immigration status, sexual orientation or anything else.” NCLR notes that in nearly half of the binational LGBT couples facing separation, one of the partners is Latino.

RELATED: Latino groups launch groundbreaking gay rights public service campaign 

In discussing the possible Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage, Latina constitutional scholar Enid Trucios-Haynes says shifting public opinion does have an impact on the nation’s highest court.

“In 1896, for example, equality under the Constitution allowed segregation, but in 1954, the court found equality under the Constitution could not permit segregation,” explains Trucios-Haynes, a professor of law at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville.

In the event the Supreme Court upholds California’s gay marriage ban as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, Trucios-Haynes says laws in support of gay marriage will most probably start being enacted state by state, as public opinion increasingly supports this.  ”It will take longer, but it might be faster than many of us think it would be,” she remarks.

“This is about families, and if we value families, this is about the 40 thousand children (in California) whose parents are living in a committed relationship and who should be able to get married,” says Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who said today on MSNBC he has supported gay marriage since 1994.

Inside the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked defenders of California’s same-sex marriage ban what harm is done by allowing same-sex couples to marry. NBC News’ Pete Williams says that most members of the court, including its more liberal justices, seemed to hint they might not issue a sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage but might limit it to California.

In the meantime, Ingrid Duran hopes the Supreme Court affirms the legal basis for gay marriage in the U.S.

“It’s great that public opinion is changing, but that still doesn’t impact mine and Catherine’s ability to get married in our state of Virginia; right now it is illegal for us to get married and adopt a child,” she says. Duran says it has been difficult – and costly – to set up things like health care proxies so that if something happens to one of them, the other partner is allowed rights that come effortlessly to a married couple.

“The laws really have to change,” says Duran.

To be sure, the two cases involve different legal issues. The University of Texas dispute, with arguments already completed and a ruling possible soon, centers on the use of race to fill some slots in the school’s freshman classes. The Michigan case asks whether a voter-approved ban on affirmative action in college admissions can itself violate the Constitution.

But the broadest possible outcome in the current Texas case – overruling the court’s 2003 decision that allows race as a factor in college admissions – would mean an end to affirmative action in higher education and render the new Michigan lawsuit irrelevant.

If the justices are planning to overrule that earlier decision, “then I would think they would hold this case,” the new one, and order lower courts to review it based on the Texas decision, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine. He is representing students and faculty members in the Michigan case.

At the October argument in Fisher v. University of Texas, the court’s conservative justices sounded as if they were ready to impose new limits on the use of race in college admissions. More than five months have passed without a decision, which is not unusual in the court’s most contentious cases.

The appeal in the Michigan case comes from state Attorney General Bill Schuette, following a ruling from the sharply divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The appeals court, by an 8-7 vote, found fault with the 2006 constitutional amendment to outlaw “preferential treatment” on the basis of race and other factors in college admissions. The provision also applies to affirmative action in public employment and government contracting, but those issues are not being challenged.

The appeals court said the constitutional amendment is illegal under Supreme Court rulings from the late 1960s and early 1980s that prohibit placing special burdens on minority groups that want to bring about changes in laws and policies. The court said that forcing opponents of the ban to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action amounts to different, and unequal, treatment.

That burden “undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change,” the appeals court said. By way of example, the court said that children of university alumni remain free to lobby lawmakers and university officials to adopt policies to take family ties into account in admissions.

Schuette said the notion that a measure that forbids discrimination on the basis of race can be unconstitutional is legal nonsense.

“Entrance to our great colleges and universities must be based upon merit, and I remain optimistic moving forward in our fight for equality, fairness and rule of law at our nation’s highest court,” Schuette said Monday.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Dennis Parker said the constitutional ban discriminates against students of color.

“Michigan’s proposal aims to unfairly keep students from encouraging universities to consider race as one factor in admissions but does not do the same for those who are trying to get the school to acknowledge other factors, such as legacy or athletic achievement,” said Parker, director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program

Both the Michigan and Texas cases trace their roots to the same Supreme Court decision in 2003 – Grutter v. Bollinger – that upheld the use of race by colleges and universities in their quest for diverse student bodies.

The ruling came in a lawsuit involving the University of Michigan law school.

In response to the court’s 5-4 decision in that case, affirmative action opponents worked to put a ballot measure in front of voters that would outlaw the consideration of race. Similar laws are in place in Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington, Arizona Attorney General Thomas Horne said in a legal briefing supporting Michigan.

In November 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters approved the measure. Civil rights groups sued to block the provision the day after the vote.

At the University of Texas, roughly three-fourths of incoming freshmen are Texans who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. They are automatically admitted under a plan that was designed to increase diversity without taking race into account. After the high court decision in 2003, Texas added the consideration of race among many factors to fill remaining slots.

A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008.

The justices could rule in Fisher’s favor without upsetting their 2003 decision, especially because Texas already has achieved a measure of diversity through the so-called top 10 plan, which is race-neutral.

In the event they are unable to come to a resolution in the Texas case, the justices also could use the new matter to, in essence, re-argue the pros and cons of affirmative action. The court could rule in the Texas case, order new arguments or decide it is deadlocked 4 to 4 as early as Tuesday, or as late as the end of June.

Justice Elena Kagan is sitting out the Texas case, and also is not taking part in the new one.

It also is possible that the two cases are divorced from one another in the justices’ minds. Gail Heriot, an affirmative action opponent, said she doesn’t see a strong link between the cases.

“Fisher is a tough case. It asks whether a state may choose to engage in race discrimination in college admissions for what it regards as a good cause (even if many people disagree). Schuette asks only whether a state may choose instead to treat its citizens equally regardless of race, color, sex, or ethnicity. To me, the answer to the latter question is obvious,” said Heriot, who serves on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and also teaches law at the University of San Diego.

The Michigan case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 12-682.

The northern California boy wrote a heartfelt and emotional letter to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, urging him to strike down Proposition 8 and embrace gay marriage. Martinez-Leffew, who was adopted when he was  5 years old by two gay dads, says he was inspired to write to Justice Roberts after he found out Roberts had two adopted children — just like him and his sister.

But the most poignant moment comes 1 minute, 20 seconds into the video. Martinez-Leffew says he was considered “unadoptable” by the foster care agency because of his genetic disorder, Goldenhar Syndrome, which affects the left side of his body.

Martinez-Leffew recalls that once his dads Bryan and Jay came along and adopted him, everything changed for the better.

“I knew everything they said was a lie, and I felt a lot better,” he says. “Family is thicker than blood. It’s not just the people that you’re born with, it’s the people who care about you and love you. Because anyone can have a kid.”

RELATED: LGBT families should be included in immigration reform, Latino voters say 

It was this message that Martinez-Leffew felt he just had to get across to Justice Roberts ahead of important Supreme Court deliberations on marriage equality. The Supreme Court is expected to take up Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act next week on March 26th.

Daniel Martinez-Leffew

Martinez-Leffew says that the idea for the video came up during conversation around the dinner table.

“My dad told me how he [Justice Roberts] had two adopted kids like me and my sister and I thought it would be a really great idea to write a letter to him,” he recalls.

Bryan Leffew, Martinez-Leffew’s father who appears in the video with him, says that conversation was sparked after National Organization for Marriage leader John Eastman called Justice Roberts’ decision to adopt a “second-best option.”

“We were ticked off at some comments that had been made about adoption. The National Organization for Marriage called adoption a second-best option, so that’s what brought up Justice Roberts and his family,” Leffew says. “Something just hit home for Daniel and he decided to write the letter. It took him about a day to write. We went through and read what he wrote and were blown away.”

RELATED: Opinion: Allowing gay adoption in Puerto Rico is not only right, it is inevitable 

The video was posted on Bryan Leffew and Jay Foxworthy’s blog, GayFamilyValues, which they started with the mission of showing that their family was like any other. The idea for the blog came about when Bryan and Jay realized that the slew of commercials for and against Prop 8 left out the perspective of real gay couples and families. Now, their website features hundreds of videos chronicling their life as a family with two gay fathers.

“The best thing would be for people to realize that two people of the same sex is not something that’s scary. It’s two people falling in love, which a lot of people do everyday. We want people to see that our kids will grow and thrive just like everybody else’s kids do,” Leffew says.

The videos have gotten a tremendous response, with most videos on the site getting around a few thousand views each. But Martinez-Leffew’s video has been by far the most successful with over 150,000 views in just four days. But even the Leffews were shocked by one of their biggest fans: Puerto Rican superstar Ricky Martin.

RELATED: Ricky Martin addresses United Nations, reveals “I lived in fear” 

“The really cool thing that’s happened to us so far is that Ricky Martin followed us on Twitter. I remember hearing my dad scream from the other room,” Martinez-Leffew says.

Martin, who came out in 2010, not only followed GayFamilyValues on Twitter, but also tweeted out Martinez-Leffew’s letter to the Justice Roberts.

What do 2 gay guys and a conservative supreme court justice have in common? By @depfox. (via @upworthy) upworthy.com/the-argument-t…

— Ricky Martin (@ricky_martin) March 20, 2013

Martinez-Leffew and the rest of the family will be eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8. In the meantime, Martinez-Leffew isn’t letting all the attention get to him. All the aspiring chef wants out of his video is for Roberts to see that the Supreme Court decision will affect families like his.

“I hope he makes the right decision in the end and sees that my family is a lot like his.”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy