As expected, ProtectMarriage.com has filed an emergency stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the Prop 8 trial with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The stay that Walker put on his ruling will expire on August 18 absent any action from the Ninth Circuit. A copy of the Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is here.
Brian Devine notes the argument ProtectMarriage.com has made for “irreparable harm” coming to them if same-sex couples are allowed to marry in the next week:
It is thus imperative that a stay pending appeal be entered on or before August 18, 2010 at 5 p.m. to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages. See, e.g., Advisory: If Judge Walker Says It’s OK to Get Married, GLTNN.com, Aug. 11, 2010, available at http://gltnewsnow.com/2010/08/11/advisory-if-judge-walker-says-it’s-ok-to-get-married/ (reporting that West Hollywood stands ready to marry gay couples “[a]s soon as the federal judge lifts the stay,” and that Los Angeles County “is prepared to take immediate action to implement the court’s orders if the stay is lifted”) quotation marks omitted).
This statement neglects the fact that there is ALREADY a class of same-sex marriages in California. There has been throughout the whole trial. The 18,000 same-sex couples who married between May and November 2008 are still legally married. It’s hard to figure what irreparable harm that has done.
Walker, who denied the stay motion to ProtectMarriage.com yesterday, doubted that the intervenors even had standing to appeal his ruling, even while they were allowed to argue the case in court.
Although he allowed the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the measure to defend the lawsuit during the 13-day trial over which he presided, the judge said appellate courts have different rules for deciding when a party is eligible to challenge a lower court.
Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban’s sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker’s court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.
ProtectMarriage.com is using a separate argument, saying that the courts have found that sponsors of a ballot initiative have standing to defend that initiative in a legal appeal. That argument has a better chance of succeeding.
National anti-gay groups may not contest the lack of standing too vigorously. If nobody can challenge the case in California, the legal arguments cannot spread to the Supreme Court, where a precedent-setting case would potentially make same-sex marriage legal nationwide. But California, with 1 in 9 of the nation’s citizens, is a big chip for them to lose. And clearly, the forces behind Prop 8 at the state level will fight this tooth and nail.
Even if the Ninth Circuit chooses not to deal with the stay and denies standing, the intervenors could appeal to the Supreme Court.



31 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Thanks for this, dday.
This is all very good legal drama. The biggie will be whether the intervenor/busybodies are given standing to appeal or are told by the courts to sit down and shut up.
It is difficult to imagine the conservatives on the Supreme Court being nonpartisan enough to not reverse this.
Just remember that the lead attorney for the plaintiffs was a former Republican solicitor general. Judge Walker was a Republican appointee.
Even if the intervenors take the case to the Supremes, the Supremes could simply refuse to hear the case. That would mean continuing fights on a state-by-state basis. I can definitely see that as a possible outcome.
That’s true, but they are not Scalia and his clones.
I don’t think the proponents of Prop 8 really want this case to go to the Supremes…
their case is just awful and it is much too risky, as they also could lose the whole enchilada.
How much faith can you have in a supreme court that is willing to hear Orly Taitz? That seems to bode well for the Prop 8 supporters.
There’s already the decision in MA overturning part of DOMA. Things will soon that things will be running on different tracks in various jurisdictions. That will put great pressure on SCOTUS to come up with a national resolution.
They’ll never go away, they’ll disguise the next attack when they lose this one. Sad
This is true, but Walker notes none of them want to enter into a same-sex marriage, so they cannot claim harm if the stay is allowed to lapse next week (i.e., they may have standing to proceed with their appeal, but not to have a stay pending resolution of that appeal). They are claiming that any same-sex couples that wed between 8/18 and whenever they prevail and Prop 8 is found constitutional, would be harmed when their marriages are invalidated.
If I understand things correctly…
Mmm, don’t think so. It has to go through the 9th Circuit to get to the Supremes. If they decline to hear it, whatever the 9th Circuit ruled stands.
Question at the moment is whether it will make it to the 9th Circuit…
Well, we’ll see. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking brought on by this case. In reality, same-sex marriage is only lawful in a handful of states right now. It’s not as though there are lawsuits in two-dozen states all going on at the same time where a Supreme Court decision could bring clarity to the issue. It was 100 years between the beginning of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act being signed into law, even though there were significant court cases in between. How many years did it take for women’s suffrage to be passed into national law? After all these years, we still don’t have the ERA. All I’m saying is that while this case may be the Brown v. Board of Ed. of the gay rights movement, it may ultimately prove to be just one more legal decision in a long, long slog. Not trying to be a wet blanket, just looking at this struggle in terms of other civil rights struggles.
True. My point is just that. If the Supremes were to let a 9th Circuit decision stand–whatever that decision may be–it still only affects California. That wouldn’t serve as precedent in any other lawsuits out-of-state.
If the Supreme court somehow refused to hear the case (hmm, they’re actually going to review whether Orly Taitz has to pay a $20,000 fine for frivolous use of the courts regarding her suits to somehow prove Barack Obama is not a legally elected prez ’cause he must have been born in Kenya, Indonesia, or ANYWHERE but in Hawaii), then the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whatever that may be, would stand, ONLY in the states within the Ninth Circuit. There has to be a ruling by the Supreme Court to affect ALL the states, although a ruling against Prop 8 could portend the beginning of the end to the civil rights issue in this arena. Other circuits might look to the Ninth’s ruling as precedent.
The Ninth is known as the most liberal of the courts of appeal, but they just ruled that logging may continue, under the Northwest Forest Plan, in an old-growth set aside, throwing environmental forest activists a curve ball. There are a couple of right wingers on the court, notably the brother of former Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, and Jay Bybee, who wrote the Bush Administration torture memos. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Are you sure? My understanding is that any law in the US is subject to review by the USSC, it doesn’t need to go up the chain of command as it were. I believe the USSC can hear any case it wants to by issuing a writ of certiorari. I don’t know if the four Grand Inquisitors (Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas) will agree to a writ, but it takes only four.
grayslady, to reiterate: ANY ruling by a federal circuit court of appeals applies to ALL states in that circuit, not just the state from which the challenge derives. That means all the states in the west, in this case. Cheers, Howard
reddflag is correct, this is the basis of their granting a hearing to Taitz
No if the 9th circuit sustains Walker’s decision, it them applies to all of that circuit which is several western states.
How ironic then if gay marriage becomes legal in Utah, even for a short time, since the Utah Church played such a big part in getting Prop 8 passed in CA.
No. If the 9th Circuit says the DIs have no standing to appeal and it ends there, Walker’s decision is confined to these plaintiffs (although anyone else who wanted to bring suit would have great case law and facts to cite). If the 9th Circuit hears the appeal and denies it, and the Supremes decline to review, it stands.
Remember the hoo-ha around Sonia Sotomayor – that X% of her circuit court decisions were overturned. That only counted the small percentage of her decisions that were ever heard by the Supremes, and didn’t take into account the multitudes more that were allowed to stand.
badwater: YEAH HOO! I’d love it, their karma, neh?
And, to hijean, only in the Ninth Circuit.
Apparently this is SOP when one member has declined the request and it comes to another – just to save the hassle it would take to run through them all one at a time. Doesn’t mean they’re taking her seriously.
Thanks for the clarification. I have no idea which states the 9th circuit covers. However, I think we agree that any ruling by the 9th circuit still doesn’t affect other circuits.
Either 9th Circuit or these plaintiffs, in no case CA only (CA is the defendant, but it’s a ‘federal case’).
Actually, it looks like Utah is not covered by the 9th circuit.
Update from Be_Devine @ Calitics:
The Ninth Circuit just issued an Order stating that the Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion to Stay is due by 11:00 p.m. tonight. The Prop 8 supporters’ reply, not to exceed 15 pages, is due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 16, 2010. This suggests that the Ninth Circuit is preparing to rule on the Motion to Stay before Judge Walker’s temporary stay expires on August 18th at 5:00 p.m.
It’s surprising that the Court only gave the Plaintiffs about 9 hours to file their brief, and gave the Appellants until Monday to Reply. But I wouldn’t read too much into this. They know that everyone anticipated the Motion and that everyone’s briefs are essentially written already.
From Wiki:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in case citations, 9th Cir.) is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:
District of Alaska
District of Arizona
Central District of California
Eastern District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
District of Hawaii
District of Idaho
District of Montana
District of Nevada
District of Oregon
Eastern District of Washington
Western District of Washington
It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:
District Court of Guam
District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Agreed. The Appellants is due at the start of business on Monday. Perry’s is due post business hours today. It puts a little onus on the Good Guys to ask for a delay if they don’t think they can crank something out that fast. One suspects they had most of it written, and just need to point out some of the idiocy of the Bad Guys arguments.
More interesting to look at is the order:
Senior Circuit Judge Edward Leavy
Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins
Circuit Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas
Leavy is an RR appointee, up over 80. Hawkins is a 65 year old Clinton appointee. Thomas is a 57 year old (on Saturday) Clinton appointee who got some mention for Stevens’ slot.
I don’t think their having this stay is an indcation that they (rather than Judges Wardlaw, Fisher and Berzon) will hear the appeal. Bmaz could clarfy on that. I think it just may be that their ticket was punched on the emergency stay.
Hmm, interesting that Utah somehow got left out of the ninth Circuit, considering Arizona and Nevada are in. Must be in the eighth.
I saw the Maddow report on Taitz, and the pro forma receipt of the Writ of Certiorari for Taitz, I guess persistance pays. Just more taxpayer $$ wasted on her goofy fantasy. Sad.
Which justice on the Supreme Court is hiding deep in the closet?