A judge says she's not sure whether lawsuits filed to block a Nebraska city's ban on hiring and renting to illegal immigrants should be heard in federal or state court.

U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp on Wednesday gave attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund two weeks to submit briefs explaining why their suits belong in federal court.

The move delays any ruling about whether to block the city of Fremont's voter-approved ban.

But it still won't go into effect this week. The City Council has temporarily suspended the ordinance until the lawsuits are resolved.

Some in Fremont say the ordinance makes up for what they call lax federal law enforcement. Others argue it could fuel discrimination.

Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department oppose a request to merge their challenge to the new Arizona immigration law with a lawsuit by a police officer who also is seeking to overturn the law.

The federal lawyers oppose Phoenix police Officer David Salgado's request to consolidate the cases because they say it would prejudice or delay their challenge.

The officer's attorney had argued that the cases are virtually identical because they claim the state law is trumped by federal immigration law and because both seek to keep the state law from being enforced.

The Justice Department says it's challenging more sections of the law than Salgado and that its contention that the law is trumped by federal law differs from the officer's arguments.

The push for gay marriage in New Jersey suffered a setback Monday when the state Supreme Court said six gay couples who claim New Jersey has denied them the rights granted to married heterosexual couples must argue their case through the lower courts.
The court was split, 3-3, in the decision; four affirmative votes are needed for a motion to be granted.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens said in an order that the issue "cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record," and denied the plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.

They added that they reached no conclusion on the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations that the Civil Union Act violates their constitutional rights.