Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Ninth Circuit stays Perry ruling

Timothy Kincaid

August 16th, 2010

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled:

Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.

The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

This is a partial victory. Ted Olson had requested that if the stay was granted, that the case be expedited and gave suggested dates. These dates are very close to those requested by Olson.

If the appeal is to begin in the first week of December, it will be over before the new governor and state attorney general are sworn in, whomever they may be.

Jim’s Update: Another key point is that the Court orders the Alliance Defense Fund to show why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. This is more great news, since it’s still not even clear that the court will actually hear an appeal.

In the meantime, this will probably push the possible resumption of same-sex marriages until sometime in 2011, since it can take anywhere from several weeks to several months following oral arguments for the court to issue its decision.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Bruno
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

The Article III standing question seems to be a serious one. Overall, this was what I expected to happen.

Lindoro Almaviva
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

well, the appeal has not been granted, it seems that the court wants to hear from the proponents on how and why should they not be laughed off the court.

Am I not reading this well?

Timothy Kincaid
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

The burden of proof is on ADF for “why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing.”

Kate
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

It seems to me strangely ironic, and deeply frustrating, that a fight over the right to love another person should be waged with such dry rhetoric and exacting legal terminology. Did I miss something, or is there no real reason given for the decision to grant the stay? My heart hurts to see this; I want to know why they can hide behind arcane legalese to deny two people the right to celebrate love.

Jake
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

No this isn’t a partial victory, it’s a complete disaster. The only possibly good thing about it is that they’ve expedited the schedule.

Granting the stay: Bad news for at least 4 more months.

Questioning the standing of the only people appealing this: Worse news. If the 9th circuit refuses to hear this because they lack standing, then the ruling only applies in California and never makes it to SCOTUS.

What would have been great news is denying the stay and saying yeah you’ve got standing. Then people who wanted to get married would have 4 months (at least) to get their acts together, and the case would likely be decided in our favor and apply to every Pacific State (and AZ, NV, MT, and ID). SCOTUS isn’t as friendly of territory but even if did get eventually shot down there, 9 states would have marriage equality for some period of time.

Michael
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

Jake,

First, take a deep breath.

Second, these are important, precedent setting decisions. Everyone involved in these decisions is making every effort to ensure that every “i” is dotted and every “t” crossed to ensure that no claims of “bias” can be raised, and that their decisions are unassailable. They are well aware that their’s is not the final say, and any decision reached by the 9th Circuit Court will be carefully scrutinized and reviewed by the press, the world and ultimately, the SCOTUS. They are covering their asses.

Even the public is now realizing that (in spite of all the inflammatory rhetoric) this is a basic issue of civil rights. The fundamental issue of the 14th amendment will prevail.

cd
August 16th, 2010 | LINK

Well, the silver lining is that a referendum to restore SSM legality in November 2012 will likely pass. That would make the lawsuit moot.

Coxygru
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

Sua sponte! The court wrote it was taking this case “sua sponte” – on its own initiative – since, as it states, Prop8 backers clearly have no standing to make this appeal.

Prup (aka Jim Benton
August 17th, 2010 | LINK

One point that no one seems to be making is that, by waiting until December, the Court is keeping a mid-October ruling from energizing Republican voters, not just in CA, but everywhere. Doubt if it was their intention, but it is a pleasant side effect.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.