Prop. 8 cases joined, moving faster

Moving to speed up its coming rulings on California's ban on same-sex marriage, the Ninth Circuit Court on Monday joined two of its pending cases that seek to revive that measure -- Proposition 8. In a brief order, a three-judge panel consolidated cases that both carry the case title Perry, et al., v. Brown, et al. (Circuit dockets 10-16696 and 10-16577). Both are challenges, but for different...

SCOTUSblog • Nov 22, 2011

Prop. 8: Plea to throw out ruling

In the new maneuver, the opponents of same-sex marriage relied upon comments that Walker had made in April, after his retirement, to a group of reporters, acknowledging publicly for the first time that he had been engaged in a ten-year same-sex relationship with a doctor. The motion asserted that the opponents were "not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on his case." Rather, t...

SCOTUSblog • Apr 28, 2011

Prop. 8: Trial TV blackout permanent?

It thus appears that, when the Circuit Court reacts to the new dispue, it might have to provide its own interpretation of what the Supreme Court's action in 2010 meant. It could, however, rule based only on its understanding of what local court rules allow, although that seems less likely. There is also an issue of whether the Circuit Court should deal itself with this new dispute, or refer it b...

SCOTUSblog • Apr 23, 2011

Plea to make public Prop. 8 trial video

The judge who presided over the Proposition 8 trial on same-sex marriage in California is accused of defying a Supreme Court order against any public broadcast of videotapes of that trial. UPDATE: The judge responded on Thursday, without mentioning the charge of defying the Court. FURTHER UPDATE: The couples who challenged Prop. 8 urge the Circuit Court to make public the full videotape of last ye...

SCOTUSblog • Apr 16, 2011

Prop. 8: Who speaks for the state?

The Ninth Circuit indicated in January that it would put off a ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until after it gets some legal advice from the state Supreme Court on whether the backers of the ballot measure have any authority under state law to defend the ban in court since state officials have refused to do so. The proponents filed their brief on that issue in March. In reply M...

SCOTUSblog • Apr 8, 2011

Prop. 8: Battling in new arena

n brief, here is what the four letters proposed: Opponents of Prop. 8 (supporters of same-sex marriage) -- The state Supreme Court should decline to take up the request from the Circuit Court. The issue of who may defend Prop. 8, they said, is a matter of federal law, and no one but the state, under state law, has a right to decide whether to defend the measure. The state has refused to do so....

SCOTUSblog • Jan 27, 2011

Right-to-appeal issue looms

If it turns out in the end that no one has a legal right to be in federal court to defend Prop. 8′s constitutionality, it is unclear -- at least for now -- what would happen to U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's decision in August striking down the ban under the federal Constitution. The two sides in the case disagree on whether that ruling would stand, unreviewed by a higher court, or whethe...

SCOTUSblog • Jan 7, 2011

New Prop. 8 hearing order

Under the new order, the first hour -- the same as before -- will be devoted to whether anyone has "standing" to appeal a federal judge's decision striking down Proposition 8.k The second hour - focusing on the merits of the ban -- will provide 20 minutes, instead of 15, for the challengers....

SCOTUSblog • Nov 27, 2010

Prop 8 backers defend appeal

Beginning a sturdy new defense of California voters' right to impose a flat ban on same-sex marriage, the supporters of the controversial Proposition 8 told a federal appeals court Friday night that the case should go forward but, as an alternative, should be thrown out of court altogether with no ruling left on the books on the ban's constitutionality. Scuttling the case, of course, would leave ...

SCOTUSblog • Sep 18, 2010