The gay marriage case pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court was not among the opinions released Thursday.
Justices heard oral arguments more than seven months ago on an appeal of Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's rejection of a 2004 voter-approved measure defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Piazza's May 2014 ruling allowed gay marriage for several days before it was stayed, pending the state high court's decision.
Thursday, when the court normally releases its opinions, was eyed as a potential release day for the gay-marriage case because it was thought to be the final one before a summer recess.
But Stacey Pectol, clerk for the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, said the high court will remain in chamber during the summer and could conceivably issue an opinion on a case at any time.
Pectol said she couldn't speculate on when or if an opinion would be handed down or if additional opinions were likely to be released next Thursday.
The state's high court's decision is pending while the U.S. Supreme Court closes in on a decision on the same issue. That court also did not rule on a pending gay marriage case Thursday, but an opinion was expected from it Friday or Monday, its final two conference days for the term.
The makeup of the state's high court changed after the Nov. 20 oral arguments, though no second round of arguments was ordered. Justice Donald Corbin retired and was replaced by former Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Robin Wynne.
Another state Supreme Court justice, Cliff Hoofman, was replaced by another former appeals court judge, Rhonda Wood. Hoofman, though, had recused from the gay-marriage case and then-Gov. Mike Beebe appointed a special justice, Judge Robert McCorkindale, to replace him.
The Arkansas Supreme Court in April created a second case to determine which justices should rule on the ban, deciding last month that it would be the two new justices, Wynne and Wood. But the move to spin off the second case drew criticism from Chief Justice Jim Hannah and Justice Paul Danielson, who recused from the secondary case and in letters to the court suggested it was a delaying tactic.