9th Circuit Prop 8 decision on standing

[cestlefun17]

A decision on procedure in the lawsuit in Perry v. Schwarzenegger has been reached. This decision affects solely the issue of standing. A decision has not yet been reached on the merits.

The 9th Circuit has ruled that Imperial County does not have standing to appeal and has certified a question to the California Supreme Court on whether or not the ballot initiative proponents have standing to appeal.

The California Supreme Court may answer this question at their pleasure, or not at all. The 9th Circuit will follow the advice of the CA Supreme Court.

----

This ruling is of immense consequence. The CA Supreme Court will most likely grant standing to the proponents. By not ruling directly on standing, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule on the question of standing. This means that, unless the 9th Circuit limits the scope of its ruling on the merits to California, this will be THE case that determines the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

[ironbite]

Oh sweet!

[Meshakhad]

After thinking about it, I have come down on the side of hoping that this makes it to the Supreme Court. If the pro-Prop 8 side had made a halfway decent case, I'd be worried. But they barely had a case at all, let alone a good one.

Yes, a SCOTUS ruling that marriage is not a fundamental right would be a setback. It would greatly limit the use of the courts. But legislative options would still be open. It would take longer - much longer - but we'd win in the end.

[Tiger]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Supreme Court is evenly split, with Justice Kennedy being the tie breaker. Kennedy's previous rulings in favor of gay rights factored heavily into Judge Walker's ruling - what's he going to do, disagree with himself?

Oh, and I followed pretty much every line of the original trial. You'd have to be an idiot on Scalia's level to find Yes on 8's lawyers compelling in any way. They actually stood in front of a federal judge and admitted that they had no idea how gay marriage harmed straight couples. If they do as well in DC as they did in California... the part of me that's stubbornly optimistic about humanity thinks that some of the conservative judges might even come around. Probably not, though.

[erictheblue]

Jan 4, 2011 17:07:58 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

The 9th Circuit has ruled that Imperial County does not have standing to appeal

Not surprising, given the beating they gave the attorney for Imperial Co during oral arguments.

and has certified a question to the California Supreme Court on whether or not the ballot initiative proponents have standing to appeal.

This is surprising, though I do wonder if politics was involved. If they had ruled the ballot initiative proponents do not have standing, the case would have ended. Yes, it would have ended with a ruling in favor of SSM, but the holding was limited and only a trial court level decision. By being willing to consider the idea the proponents have standing, it opens the door to allowing the 9th Cir to actually rule on the merits of the case.

This means that, unless the 9th Circuit limits the scope of its ruling on the merits to California, this will be THE case that determines the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

Hate to burst your bubble, but this isn't quite true. Only USSC holdings are binding nationwide. If the 9th Cir rules in favor of SSM, it is binding on states in the 9th Cir. If someone in another Circuit brings a federal case and takes it to their local Circuit, that Circuit can rule however they want (based on precedent). The 9th Cir ruling would be "influential," but not "binding."

Also note that the 9th Cir ruling would not be binding on state courts outside the 9th Cir. If someone brought a state case in another state, the state Supreme Court would rule on their state law, which may or may not be identical to federal law.

[devilschaplain2]

I'd rather the case were decided on its merits and not on the basis of standing. Hopefully it'll make it to the Supreme Court.

[malicious_bloke]

Wow, this shit is STILL going on?

I thought this had been overturned already

[devilschaplain2]

Jan 4, 2011 20:41:34 GMT -5 malicious_bloke said:

Wow, this shit is STILL going on?

I thought this had been overturned already

It was appealed after Judge Walker ruled it was unconstitutional.

[malicious_bloke]

*facepalm*

[devilschaplain2]

Jan 4, 2011 20:48:41 GMT -5 malicious_bloke said:

*facepalm*

Oh no, that's a good thing. I'm hoping it reaches the Supreme Court. I'm predicting a 5-4 decision in favor of marriage equality ;D

[malicious_bloke]

OK this whole thing is so tied up in knots I seem to have lost track of which side is which.

Prop 8 was the motion to ban same-sex marriage, right? And that was overturned by some higher court or other...after that it gets a bit with the endless legal wranglings.

[ironbite]

Well this is actually relevent then.

Think about that when you're eating your chicken sammich.

[malicious_bloke]

Well, it would be relevant if they had any outlets in this country, or any affiliation to anti-gay groups in this country. Oddly, they have neither...

[cestlefun17]

Hate to burst your bubble, but this isn't quite true. Only USSC holdings are binding nationwide. If the 9th Cir rules in favor of SSM, it is binding on states in the 9th Cir. If someone in another Circuit brings a federal case and takes it to their local Circuit, that Circuit can rule however they want (based on precedent). The 9th Cir ruling would be "influential," but not "binding."

Also note that the 9th Cir ruling would not be binding on state courts outside the 9th Cir. If someone brought a state case in another state, the state Supreme Court would rule on their state law, which may or may not be identical to federal law.

I know this, but should the 9th Circuit grant standing, uphold the original decision, and enforce its scope on the entire 9th Circuit, it would most assuredly be heard before the Supreme Court.

[itachirumon]

Jan 4, 2011 21:15:39 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Hate to burst your bubble, but this isn't quite true. Only USSC holdings are binding nationwide. If the 9th Cir rules in favor of SSM, it is binding on states in the 9th Cir. If someone in another Circuit brings a federal case and takes it to their local Circuit, that Circuit can rule however they want (based on precedent). The 9th Cir ruling would be "influential," but not "binding."

Also note that the 9th Cir ruling would not be binding on state courts outside the 9th Cir. If someone brought a state case in another state, the state Supreme Court would rule on their state law, which may or may not be identical to federal law.

I know this, but should the 9th Circuit grant standing, uphold the original decision, and enforce its scope on the entire 9th Circuit, it would most assuredly be heard before the Supreme Court.

Precisely, the 9th Cir won't be what decides it, but either side would appeal to the SCOTUS and THAT ruling will have nationwide effect. I love the idea of Prop 8 being the Trojan horse that destroys the anti-gays, they made this monster now they have to watch it blow up in their faces.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Supreme Court is evenly split, with Justice Kennedy being the tie breaker. Kennedy's previous rulings in favor of gay rights factored heavily into Judge Walker's ruling - what's he going to do, disagree with himself?

Oh, and I followed pretty much every line of the original trial. You'd have to be an idiot on Scalia's level to find Yes on 8's lawyers compelling in any way. They actually stood in front of a federal judge and admitted that they had no idea how gay marriage harmed straight couples. If they do as well in DC as they did in California... the part of me that's stubbornly optimistic about humanity thinks that some of the conservative judges might even come around. Probably not, though.

*paraphrasing from memory*
Boies: The third point on your list of things for a healthy marriage is sex

Blankenhorn: That's certainly an interesting subject

Boies: Well, I wouldn't want to make sex boring

Blankenhorn: Well... perhaps together, we can make it interesting.