Melisa Keeton and Shelley Wolfe of Des Moines received their waiver by 9 a.m.

Same-sex couples in Iowa began applying for marriage license Monday after a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay unions took effect.

The high court issued an order early in the day confirming that the appeals process in the case has officially concluded.

The Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous and emphatic decision on April 3 made Iowa the third state to allow same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Vermont has passed a law that will take effect in September.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled the so-called widow penalty doesn't necessarily require that immigrants' permanent residency applications be denied when their American spouses die. Citing a 2006 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Snyder ruled this week that applicants don't lose their status as spouses of U.S. citizens if the death occurs before the government rules on their applications.

The decision, if made final, would be a victory for more than 200 people across the country who have been affected by the widow penalty, said attorney Brent Renison, who filed the class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles.

"This case is very significant because it's the first that follows the circuit court decision and gives guidance to the agency on what it can and cannot do in these situations," Renison told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has argued the law requires that residency applications be rejected for immigrants whose American spouses die within two years of being married.

The case from New Haven, Conn., pits white firefighters, who showed up at the court Wednesday in their dress uniforms, against the city over its decision to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results.

As is often the case with closely fought social issues at the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the key to the outcome. He seemed concerned that New Haven scuttled the test without determining that there were flaws that might have led to the racially disproportionate results.

"So shouldn't there be some standard that there has to be a significant, a strong showing after the test has been taken that it's deficient? Before it can be set aside?" he said.

Kennedy often frowns on racial classifications, yet he is not as opposed to drawing distinctions on the basis of race as his more conservative colleagues.

But where Kennedy saw shades of gray, the rest of the court seemed to view the case clearly in terms of black and white.

The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason to believe evidence of a crime will be found.

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, complained that the decision upsets police practice that has developed since the court first authorized warrantless searches immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence," Alito said.

The high court agreed to hear a U.S. Justice Department appeal defending the 1999 animal cruelty law after it was struck down for infringing free-speech protections.

A U.S. appeals court declared the law unconstitutional and overturned the conviction of a Virginia man, Robert Stevens, who sold three videos of pit bulls fighting each other and attacking hogs and wild boars.

His conviction in 2005 was the first in the country under the law. Stevens had been sentenced to 37 months in prison.

By a 10-3 vote, the appeals court rejected the government's argument that, for the first time in more than 25 years, there was a new category of speech not covered by constitutional free-speech protections. Usually, videos and other depictions are protected as free speech, even if they show abhorrent conduct.