U.S. District Court via AP file

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said Friday, May 17, that Arkansas' law probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

A federal judge barred Arkansas from implementing one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws Friday, calling it "more than likely unconstitutional."

The law, which the Legislature enacted over Gov. Mike Beebe's veto in March, makes abortions illegal after only 12 weeks of pregnancy. It's scheduled to take effect in August.

At a hearing Friday in Little Rock, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright granted a temporary injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued that doctors who provide abortions would suffer "irreparable harm."

Wright said the 12-week standard criminalizes some abortions before the generally accepted medical standard of viability for a fetus, which is 24 weeks.

"The Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion," Wright said. "This act defines viability as something viability is not."

Wright didn't rule on the constitutionality of the new law itself, dubbed the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (.pdf).

But in a clear signal of how she was leaning, she said the 12-week standard criminalizes some abortions before the generally accepted medical standard of viability for a fetus, which is 24 to 28 weeks, while "the Supreme Court has consistently used viability as a standard with respect to any law that regulates abortion."

"This act defines viability as something viability is not," she said.

Josh Mesker, a spokesman for the nonprofit Arkansas Family Council, told NBC News the ruling was "disappointing, but it's not unexpected."

Mesker said the ultimate aim is to get the law before the U.S. Supreme Court, where "we expect to prevail" in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized most abortions across the U.S.

"It's not outside the realm of possibility for the current Supreme Court to readdress Roe v. Wade in a way that leans toward our position," he said.

Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, ridiculed the law as "an extreme example of how lawmakers around the country are trying to limit a woman's ability to make the best decision for herself and her family."

"These laws are designed with one purpose — to eliminate all access to abortion care," Camp said in a statement.

That was a reference to similar anti-abortion measures recently approved in North Dakota, Kansas and Mississippi. The North Dakota law, which was also passed in March, is the toughest in the U.S., banning abortions after only six weeks.

Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

In the Arkansas case, the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights are representing Tom Tvedten, medical director of Little Rock Family Planning Services, which provides abortions, and Louis J. Edwards, a gynecologist at the clinic.

In the suit, filed last month against the State Medical Board, they argue that the new law "presents physicians in Arkansas with an untenable choice: to face license revocation for continuing to provide abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment, or to stop providing the critical care their patients seek."

Wright rejected the state's motion to dismiss the case Wednesday, citing Supreme Court rulings that Roe v. Wade drew a line saying abortions generally could be banned only upon a fetus' "attainment of viability."

Anticipating just this sort of legal wrangling, Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in March, saying that defending a "blatantly unconstitutional" law would be crushingly expensive for the state.

Related:

Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell convicted of first-degree murder

'Fundamental culture change' on abortion: Conservatives make gains on restrictions

This story was originally published on Fri May 17, 2013 3:04 PM EDT

Danny Johnston / AP

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe talks to reporters Monday, March 4, at the state Capitol in Little Rock after vetoing legislation that would have banned abortions 12 weeks into a pregnancy.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed a controversial bill Monday that would have made abortions illegal after only 12 weeks, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."

Arkansas already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S. after the Republican-led Legislature last week overrode Beebe's veto of a similar bill that set the legal abortion threshold at 20 weeks' gestation. Most states allow abortions until the 22nd to 24th week.

That law took effect immediately. The new measure, which would be the most restrictive in the nation if the Legislature overrides Beebe's veto, wouldn't take effect until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns later this month or in early April.

The measure includes exceptions for rape and incest, medical conditions that would not allow the fetus to live long after birth, and circumstances under which delivery would significantly threaten the life of the woman.

Lawmakers need only a simple majority to override the veto.

Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

In a statement, Beebe, a Democrat, said the 12-week law "blatantly contradicts the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has already said it would sue if the law goes into effect.

Beebe noted that "outside groups" had offered to represent the state in any litigation, but he said that would "only lessen the state's own litigation costs," not eliminate them.

"Lawsuits challenging unconstitutional laws also result in the losing party — in this case, the state — being ordered to pay the costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the litigants who successfully challenge the law," he said.

Related: 40 years after Roe v. Wade, more states restricting abortion

The measure, introduced by Sen. Jason Rapert, a Republican from Conway, originally would have criminalized abortion after only six weeks, but the measure was amended in committee after other lawmakers objected.

"I'm disappointed for all of the unborn children that could have been saved in this bill, but I have faith that the 70 percent of the Legislature that voted to pass the bill will be there to override this veto," Rapert, founder of Holy Ghost Ministries, told reporters after the veto was announced, according to The Associated Press.

Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma is not happy with a judge's decision to require a teen to attend church as a condition of probation for a fatal drunk-driving crash.

In November, Muskogee County District Judge Mike Norman stipulated that 17-year-old Tyler Alred should attend church regularly for 10 years as a requirement to avoid a prison sentence, the Tulsa World reported. The teen admitted to police he had been drinking in the Dec. 3, 2011, crash that killed his 16-year-old passenger and friend, John Luke Dum, according to the newspaper.

The ACLU of Oklahoma filed a complaint with state judicial misconduct authorities Tuesday alleging Norman's ruling disregarded religious liberties in the federal and state constitutions.

"It is shocking that a judge would so blatantly ignore the First Amendment, which at a minimum prevents the government from forcing church attendance and from interfering in deeply personal matters of faith," Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said in a statement.

Alred had been charged with manslaughter as a youthful offender and had pleaded guilty in August, according to the Tulsa World.

By getting the mandatory church order as part of the decade of probation, Alred averted prison time. The judge also required the teen to wear an alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet, undergo drug and alcohol assessments, finish school, attend counseling, and speak about the consequences of drinking and driving, among other probation requirements, the Tulsa World reported.

"If someone wants to appeal my decision, they're entitled to do that," Norman had told the newspaper in November.

Watch US News crime videos on NBCNews.com

But Alred's defense attorney, Donn Baker, has told the Tulsa World they have no plans to fight the probation terms.

"My client goes to church every Sunday," Baker told the newspaper last month. "That isn't going to be a problem for him. We certainly want the probation for him."

More content from NBCNews.com:

• In 911 call, Belcher's mom begs girlfriend not to die
• Bob Costas: We need to talk about America's gun culture
• Snow, cold missing across much of the US
• Conversion therapists: 'You can't say gay once, gay always'
• West Point cadet quits, cites 'criminal' behavior of officers
• Video: Photographer: ‘No way’ I could have saved subway victim

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

A law in Arizona that the ACLU is calling "the most extreme and dangerous of abortion bans" was blocked from taking effect on Thursday after an emergency appeals request.

Arizona was set to become the ninth state to forbid doctors from aborting a fetus 20 weeks into a pregnancy. But unlike elsewhere in the country, Arizona would start the 20-week count after a pregnant woman's last menstrual period, or about 18 weeks into a pregnancy -- which is typically before medical problems can be detected in fetuses in prenatal exams, according to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

The law, which the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Wednesday, will likely be on hold through at least October, when all briefs on the case will be filed, said Julie Rikelman, litigation director for the Center for Reproductive Rights. A final decision is likely to be made in November or December, she said.

"We're thrilled with the decision," Rikelman said. "It's really great news for women in Arizona. We're very excited that women will still be able to get the health care that they need."

Under the ban, signed into law in April by Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., physicians could have their licenses revoked and face jail time if they violate its terms. Exceptions are life-threatening situations or medical emergencies for the mother, which Arizona law defines as a "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

Those exceptions were not enough for The Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, who filed an emergency appeal Monday night after a preliminary injunction they filed in federal court in Phoenix was dismissed.

"This is by far the narrowest health exception in any abortion law in the country," Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said. "It would force a physician who was caring for a woman with a high-risk pregnancy to wait until her condition has deteriorated to the point that it poses an immediate threat of death or major medical damage before offering her the care she needs."

It would also affect expectant mothers who receive disconcerting diagnoses about their fetuses: news that their child won't survive after birth, or will only survive for a short period of time in excruciating pain.

Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter

"For a lot of these women, that diagnosis can't be made until after 20 weeks," Kolbi-Molinas said. "This certainly is the most extreme and dangerous of abortion bans that we've seen in some time."

Arizona's late-term ban is the latest in a string of anti-abortion measures being implemented across the country. Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nebraska have passed similar restrictions in recent years; North Carolina enacted its own ban, with different specifications to its law, decades ago, said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager with the Guttmacher Institute, a rights organization based in New York.

A 'tidal wave of abortion restrictions' across the U.S.
Nash said there's been "a tidal wave of abortion restrictions" passed recently: Prior to 2011, the most restrictions ever to be passed in a year on the state level was 34, in 2005. But in 2011, a record 92 abortion restrictions were passed, followed by 39 so far in 2012, she said.

Anti-abortion groups are pleased with their recent success in enacting restrictions, particularly the bans on late-term abortions.

"It's a fetal pain law, and it's one of many that have passed in the last few years. We're very pleased," Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the D.C.-based Family Research Council, said. "This is a law that has to do with the fact that a developing baby can feel pain at a certain time in development and so because of that, abortions are not legal after that period in its development."

Monahan lauded other recent anti-abortion wins on the state level -- parental consent and informed consent among them. 

"Anything that can make abortion more rare, I think most people will agree upon," she said, citing a Gallup poll from May, which found the percentage of Americans who call themselves "pro-choice" is at a record low of 41 percent.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the increase in these laws is due to a shift in political makeup: state governments becoming more conservative over the past decade, particularly since the midterm elections.

Free birth control under health law starts 

"When the November 2010 elections came about, state legislatures and some governorships moved substantially to the more conservative end," Nash said. "You really had this welcoming environment to adopt abortion restrictions."

In Arizona, the change has been dramatic.

"If we look to 2000, Arizona was classified as a pro-choice state, supportive of abortion rights. For many years, the legislature was fairly hostile to abortion, but there was a governor in place who would veto abortion restrictions," Nash said. "When Gov. [Janet] Napolitano left for the federal government in 2009, Jan Brewer took over."

The state has passed at least a dozen abortion restrictions in the three years since Brewer became governor, Nash said.

Kolbi-Molinas, the ACLU lawyer, said the Arizona ban could put women in a position where they feel pressure to get an abortion when they might not otherwise.

Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com

"One of the perverse effects of this law, if it does go into effect, is there are some women who have high-risk pregnancies ... and they may not be able to carry to term, but they really want to try as long as they can," she said. "They would feel pressured to get an abortion before 20 weeks because they wouldn't know if they'd be able to protect their health afterwards."

Up to 90 percent of abortions occur within the first trimester, she added, making the number of women who would even consider getting abortions after 20 weeks only a tiny sliver for Arizona to have to worry about.

"Another thing worth noting is the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers," she said. "If you think about the way this law is putting women at risk if there's something wrong with their health, it's essentially denying them the abortion they might need to return home to their family."

Despite the dozens of restrictions placed on abortion in recent years, anti-abortion advocates aren't gloating.

"In January, we're going to be marking the 40-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and approximately 54 million abortions have occurred since that decision in 1973," Monahan, of the Family Research Council, said. "I don't think it's a moment of victory. It's a somber moment in our country on a lot of levels."

More content from NBCNews.com:

• 50 percent of US counties deemed 'natural disaster areas'
• Antiques dealer double-crossed investigators to get valuable rhino horns
• Video: Alleged police shooting victim sues
• Colleges freeze, reduce tuition as public balks at further price hikes
• From combat to corporate -- and the new stigma blocking some veterans

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Damian Dovarganes / AP

Members of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles hold a rally in response to the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona's immigration law, outside the Los Angeles Federal Court building on Monday.

The “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s immigration law that was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to wind up in a familiar place – back in the courtroom.

The nation’s top justices on Monday struck down three sections of SB 1070 but unanimously upheld the most-discussed provision: Section 2(B) requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop, detain or arrest for other legitimate reasons “if there’s reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally.

But exactly how local police will go about enforcing that provision is raising more questions than answers. Enforcement had been put on hold pending the Supreme Court decision; lower courts must lift the injunction before it can take effect.

Even the Supreme Court justices hinted that they expect the provision to be legally challenged again.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume 2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” the high court said.

“This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

The American Civil Liberties Union says it is exploring legal challenges to keep “show me your papers” from ever taking effect.

“The Supreme Court vacated the injunction against it but took pains to point out the potential constitutional problems that are inherent in Section 2(B) and drew a firm line in the sand that the state cannot cross,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. “We are going to be in court bringing new claims and evidence to stop 2(B) again.”

Among the possible claims are that the provision violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures and that it invites racial profiling, ACLU officials say.

Joe Rubio, lead organizer for the Arizona Interfaith Network, a coalition of religious groups that opposed SB 1070, said the provision “leaves a nebulous area” if it goes into effect.

“It’s going to be important that the state monitors very closely how police deal with immigrants during regular stops and make sure racial profiling does not occur,” Rubio said.

“I think we’re going to have a few months here where people are suspending judgment to see how it’s going to be implemented.”

Jim Gilchrist, founder and president of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group that recruits volunteers to patrol the U.S. border with Mexico, said the Supreme Court decision “left vague” the fate of enforcement of immigration laws by local police.

“Police will be able to ask (about immigration status); however, that’s all they can do,” he said.

“Nobody’s really getting serious about this. Everybody keeps kicking the ball around the court.”

The interpretation of Section 2(B) also could put law officers in a precarious bind. There are no written instructions on how long local police must wait for federal immigration officials to respond, for example, when they encounter someone they suspect is illegal.  And immigration checks could open police up to accusations of racial profiling.

"Talk about 'no win' - if they find the person is not in authorized status, what do they do? Hold them for ICE which doesn't want them? Charge them with some state crime?" said Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who has has testified before Congress on immigration, homeland security and military issues.

"If they make a mistake, they get sued. If they make too many mistakes, the rest of the statute gets enjoined as unconstitutional as enforced."

"We're going to get sued if we do. We're going to get sued if we don't. That's a terrible position to put law enforcement officers in," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, whose territory covers much of southern Arizona, told The Associated Press.

Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor told the AP he estimates the statute will result in 50,000 additional calls a year to federal immigration authorities in his city alone.

Romney pledges immigration reform, wants more state 'latitude'

Suspects for minor crimes like shoplifting or vandalism, who would normally be released with a citation, must be booked into custody if immigration authorities "don't answer the phone, they never call us back after we talk to them or whatever," Villasenor said.

The Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that the provision raises the possibility that its offices might be flooded by calls for verification checks.

“The Court’s decision not to strike down Section 2 at this time will make DHS’ work more challenging,” DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement.

Jon Feere, of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based think tank that advocates for limited legal immigration, suggested that enforcement will ultimately lead to tougher immigration laws once Congress or the courts are forced to act definitively.

“There will now be an extensive record every time Arizona contacts ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) about an illegal alien detained by local law enforcement. When the White House inevitably refuses to take an illegal alien into custody, forcing Arizona to release the alien back out onto the streets, it will become a national story if the alien goes on to commit a serious crime. Lax federal enforcement of immigration laws will be to blame,” he wrote in a blog post.

Five other states have passed laws similar to Arizona’s -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.

The ACLU says it has raised nearly $8.8 million in a special fund to challenge “show me your papers” laws in Arizona and those other states. And it’s ready to go to court again.

“If state governments enact new immigration bills, we say bring it on, we will see them in court,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said Monday.

The Justice Department has set up a federal hotline for the public to report potential civil rights concerns regarding the Arizona law. The phone number is 1-855-353-1010. The email is: SB1070(at)usdoj.gov.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• NBC exclusive: Matt Sandusky details sex abuse by his father
• Report: Missing oil tycoon's wife had sought divorce
• Video: As burglars break in, calm teen dials 911
• Supreme Court ruling leaves Arizona illegal immigrants on edge
• Teen lesbian couple shot in Texas park

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

Tim Gruber / Tim Gruber for the ACLU

States would save on average more than $66,000 per year by releasing each elderly prisoner who no longer poses a threat, the ACLU says.

States could save billions of dollars a year without compromising public safety if they released low-risk prisoners who are age 50 and older, the ACLU says.

A report released Wednesday by the organization finds that states spend more than $16 billion of taxpayer money annually locking up hundreds of thousands of “elderly” prisoners who are unlikely to re-offend.

“Extremely disproportionate sentencing policies, fueled by the ‘tough on crime’ and ‘war on drugs’ movements, have turned our prisons into nursing homes, and taxpayers are footing the bill,” Inimai Chettiar, ACLU advocacy and policy counsel and one of the report’s lead authors, said in a news release.

“Lawmakers need to implement reforms that lead to the release of those elderly prisoners who no longer pose a safety threat sufficient to justify their continued incarceration and reform our sentencing policies to prevent this epidemic at the outset.”

The report, “At America’s Expense: The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly,” says states would save an average of more than $66,000 per year for each older, low-risk prisoner released – even after factoring in post-release costs such as housing and health care.

“While some of these prisoners may turn to the government for their health care or other needs, government expenditures on released aging prisoners will be far cheaper than the costs of incarcerating them,” the report says.

According to the ACLU, 50 is the criminological consensus of when a prisoner becomes "elderly" because people age physiologically faster behind bars. There are roughly 246,600 criminals who meet that definition who are incercerated in the U.S.

“We as a country are very trigger-happy in terms of throwing people into prison for very, very long sentences without thinking why,” Chettiar told mnsbc.com. “We need to introduce proportionality into sentencing here. Is the punishment fitting the crime?”

The report says there is “overwhelming evidence” that prisoners 50 and older are far less likely to return to prison for new crimes than their younger cohorts.

The ACLU report recommends that states grant elderly prisoners access to a parole hearing, during which a parole board or similar body can evaluate whether the prisoner can be safely released.

Last year, Louisiana passed a bill that allows prisoners to go before a parole board upon turning 60, provided they meet certain criteria, including that they were not convicted of violent or sex-related crimes. Chettiar described that legislation as “an excellent first step.”

Watch US News crime videos on msnbc.com

James Alan Fox, a criminology professor at Northeastern University, said the idea of early release for elderly prisoners isn’t new. “An argument certainly can be made that most offenders over age 50 no longer pose risk given their stage in life,” he said.

But Fox said age should be just one consideration in determining eligibility for release. The more important indicators are the type of crime committed and how long the inmate has been behind bars, he said.

”There are scenarios that are so heinous in nature that they forfeit their right to live free regardless of their life cycle,” Fox said.

As an example, he cited the case of “Son of Sam” serial killer David Berkowitz, now 59, who remains behind bars for killing six people and wounding several others in a series of shootings that terrorized New York City in the 1970s. It's unlikely society would look favorably on his early release, Fox said.

Professor William Alex Pridemore of the Department of Criminal Justice at Indiana University said in an email interview that releasing inmates may not be a popular action to take. However, he said, “the public must understand ... that those selected for release would not only be older, and thus much less likely to commit further serious crime, but also would possess lower risk profiles based on their behavior while incarcerated."

He added: "The public is also beginning to understand, especially in these austere times, that prison is an extremely expensive option. It costs tens of thousands of dollars per year to house the average inmate, and these older inmates are not average. Elderly inmates are more likely to have health problems, which increases substantially the economic burden on taxpayers. More generally, rates of infectious disease like TB and hepatitis are very high in prisons, and very expensive to treat."

A victims’ advocacy group said any proposal for early-release program must take into account those who have been hurt by crime.

“The primary concerns surrounding any form of early or premature release of convicted criminals involve decisions made without any consideration or consultation of victims,” Will Marling, executive director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, said in a statement to msnbc.com.

“Such survivors of seemingly ‘lesser’ crimes commonly suffer the deepest losses because of crime. We owe it to victims to recognize how that release impacts them.”

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Witness says Sandusky threatened him unless he kept quiet
• Metallica helps FBI try to track down killer of Virginia Tech student
• Blinded soldier aims for Paralympic Games in London
• Boy Scouts board member opposes anti-gay policy
• Video: Caught on camera: Toddler tossed during car chase

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

Same-sex couples in North Carolina have filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on second-parent adoptions for gay families, saying it violates their constitutional rights and is discriminatory, the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday.

The ban came out of a state supreme court ruling in December 2010 that only stepparents who are legal spouses of the child’s biological parent can adopt. Same-sex marriage has never been recognized in North Carolina, and in May, voters approved a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, so there is no way for same-sex couples to become legal spouses.

The ACLU, along with its North Carolina chapter, filed the lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples and their children. In each of the families, the child has a legally-recognized relationship with one parent and wants to establish the same with the second one. But under the state court ruling, the existing legal parent would have to give up their parental rights for an adoption to occur.

Consequently, the legal complaint argues, these children “suffer numerous deprivations,” including exclusion from a number of benefits, such as health, disability and social security, “as well as uncertainty about their ability to continue their relationship with their second parent if something should happen to their legal parent.”

Elizabeth Gill, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, said in a statement that the policy was “discriminatory” and didn’t “take into account what’s best for a child.”

“We don’t ever want there to be any question as to who should care for our children,” said Marcie Fisher-Borne, who has been with her partner, Chantelle, for 15 years. Each woman carried one of their two children. “If something were to happen to either one of us, it could tear our family apart.”

Twenty states and the District of Columbia allow gay and lesbian parents to obtain second parent or stepparent adoptions, the complaint said, noting that North Carolina courts have given joint custody to gay or lesbian second parents under a “de facto parent doctrine.” However, that status does not create a “full” parent-child relationship, the complaint said.

Named as defendants are John W. Smith, director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, David L. Churchill, Clerk of the Superior Court for Guilford County, and Archie L. Smith, clerk of the Superior Court for Durham County.

Churchill and Archie L. Smith did not return calls placed by msnbc.com seeking comment. The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts said it does not comment on any matters where litigation is pending.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Witness says Sandusky threatened him unless he kept quiet
• Metallica helps FBI try to track down killer of Virginia Tech student
• Blinded soldier aims for Paralympic Games in London
• Boy Scouts board member opposes anti-gay policy
• Video: Caught on camera: Toddler tossed during car chase

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

AP Photo/M. Spencer Green

Claudia Mercado, left, holds her son Indigo Lopez-Mercado as Angelica Lopez right, holds the couple's other child, Isabel, as they gather for a news conference on the lawsuits in Chicago on May 30, 2012.

Twenty-five couples are challenging the constitutionality of an Illinois’ law that bans same-sex marriage, saying their only legal option of civil unions gives an inferior status to their relationships and denies them equal rights under the law.

The couples, some who have been together for decades and have children, filed separate complaints in Cook County Circuit Court on Wednesday, asking for the law that went into effect last year to be thrown out. Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois are representing them.

“Both complaints assert that the marriage ban deprives Illinois same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry and their right to equality under the law," Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, told msnbc.com.

“Some of our clients approached us ten years ago in connection with their yearning to marry here in Illinois and we’ve been telling them up until now it’s not time, and today it’s time," she said. "I think as a nation we are now at a tipping point, it’s a national moment.”

The ACLU said in a statement that the couples described how it felt to be “relegated to a legal status that sends the message that the state regards their relationships as inferior” and said the “freedom to marry will remove the stigma and other problems associated with civil unions.”

“Our relationship is not about some legal benefits and protections, but about love for one another,” said Tanya Lazaro, lead plaintiff in the ACLU case with Elizabeth Matos. The couple recently had a second child and have rejected getting a civil union. “We love each other; we are committed to one another. Anything short of marriage does not recognize that love and commitment.”

Lamba Legal helped draft the civil union legislation, which Taylor said "was an important first step to provide some measure of legal protections for Illinois families who had nothing up until then."

But today, she said, "these couples have been living their lives in civil unions for a year now and they have experienced confusion and hurt and private bias, and they shouldn’t be forced to wait any longer."

Anti-gay marriage group: We'll be on Maryland ballot

Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains
Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
In North Carolina gay marriage vote, it's Bill Clinton versus Billy Graham

Six states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while 31 states have constitutional amendments that effectively ban gay marriage (this tally does not include California, where federal judges have ruled the amendment unconstitutional though further appeals are expected).

In mid-May, President Barack Obama said he supported same-sex marriage, becoming the first American president to do so. A Gallup poll released around the same time showed 50 percent of Americans saying same-sex marriage should be legal, compared to 48 percent opposed. Support for gay marriage fell slightly in that poll from a record high of 53 percent in 2011, the first time a majority of Americans favored gay marriage. Opposition was 45 percent in that poll.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Tennessee mosque work continues after judge voids building permit
• 'D-i-r-i-g-i-b-l-e': 6-year-old nails her first word at National Spelling Bee
• Video: Couple comes to waiter's rescue with $5,000 tip
• Son of lesbian moms: Boy Scouts must end gay discrimination
• Snake-handling preacher dies from rattlesnake bite in West Virginia

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook