No en banc hearing; Prop 8 case’s next stop: Supreme Court

Timothy Kincaid

June 5th, 2012

As many predicted, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an en banc hearing to the Proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. They continued the stay on the decision for 90 days so that the Proponents may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. Jim’s excellent commentary lays out the timing of the next steps.

The most interesting aspect of today’s filing was not the announcement that en banc was denied. Rather, the most fascinating aspect was in the dissent to the decision and the response to the dissent.

Dissent:

Judges O’Scannlain, Bybee and Bea, the most conservative judges on the circuit bench, wrote a terse objection to the decision not to grant en banc. Both what was included and what was not included are odd selections and will have pundits pontificating. They chose to quote President Obama’s call for the conversation to coninue in a respectful way (they think it disrespectful not to have en banc hearing). Yet the President’s views have no bearing on constitutionality, nor are they directors for the tenor or tone of judicial determination.

What was not included was much discussion of the merits of the appeal or the legal rulings. They declare that the majority’s reading of Romer “would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it”, but still stop short of actually stating that the ruling was incorrect.

Instead, the three paragraph dissent concludes with an endorsement of “Judge N.R. Smith’s excellent dissenting opinion in this momentous case.” But Judge N.R. Smith’s “excellent dissenting opinion” was anything but forceful. In short it could be summarized as “well, it’s possible that this wasn’t entirely based in animus and I’m just not yet fully convinced that there isn’t some possible legitimate reason for this discrimination, yet.”

Also interesting is that the ruling notes that “Judge N.R. Smith would grant the petition” but Smith did not join OB&B’s dissent.

Response:

In response, Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins – the two justices who upheld Judge Walker’s ruling – reiterated the narrowness of their opinion: “We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8, that measure was invalid.”

What it means:

The Proponents took a bit of a gamble in asking for en banc. Considering the makeup of the Ninth Circuit, they had almost no chance of having the ruling reversed. In fact, depending on the panel, they could have resulted in an even more lopsided loss.

But what they could have achieved was a stronger dissent. They could have approached the SCOTUS with a scathing and biting dismissal of the court’s crazy, liberal, extremist views. And even without en banc, the dissent given by OB&B could have been a scathing and biting dismissal of the court’s crazy, liberal, extremist views.

They did not get that. They got a indignant objection to not giving the case the benefit of a hearing by the en banc panel (“at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court”) but as for the case, all detailed objections are limited to Judge Smith’s polite, somewhat reluctant and hesitant suggestion that, well, he’s not convinced. A cynical mind might even believe that the judges in objection would prefer that SCOTUS not give their objections too much mind.

Thus, the en banc attempt was a gamble and a loss for the Proponents. But, all in all, probably not a big loss.

The one thing that they might have preferred not come from the process was Reinhardt and Hawkins’ reminder about the narrowness of the decision. “Oh no,” they said, “this isn’t about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, but only about the constitutionality of whether they can be banned after they have been granted.”

Going into the certiorari process, the case is situated such that the Supremes have every reason not to hear it and few reasons to do so. It only impacts one state, it only speaks to a very peculiar set of circumstances, and it gives the court the opportunity to delay dealing with the unconstitutionality of restricting civil marriage for an unpopular minority for another few years at least.

It is impossible to predict the actions of the Supreme Court, but I think it at least somewhat likely that SCOTUS will opt not to hear this case.

Mark F.

June 5th, 2012

It’s quite possible they will punt on this case. However, I don’t think they will punt on the DOMA case also headed their way. We live in interesting times…

Lucrece

June 5th, 2012

It would be sad if Perry were punted — it’s the best case with the best advocates arguing a gay rights case.

CPT_Doom

June 5th, 2012

If the SC punts on Perry, they are still equating the Prop 8 decision with the Romer decision, which is still a big step. If they then take the MA DOMA case – on the issue of federal recognition of state marriages only – and agree, there would be a significant blow to the anti-equality forces, without the full blown “marriage must be equal” ruling the SC may be concerned about making.

That would leave full equality for another day, while strengthening the hand of the forces of equality. I could easily see Olson and Boies then finding a case in a state with an Amendment passed without a court finding in favor of gays, to extend the Perry ruling to all states. That might be more to the SC’s taste for not pushing social change.

iDavid

June 5th, 2012

I have to agree that it is highly likely that SCOTUS will punt, there isn’t much meat for them with this situation. If they punt it does set a precident for fed circuit courts if another state tries to remove gay marriage per referendum once granted.
It would then leave Olsen and Bois open to go grab a nasty backwater low brow antagonistic State, (do I hear NC as a recommendation coming from the angels on high?) to assert via SCOTUS a direct and deadly blow to the gay marriage issue once and for all.
That won’t be so easy if Obama loses, but it should be a cakewalk if he wins, which I believe he will.
Truly interesting times.

Andrew

June 6th, 2012

The issues presented in Prop 8 are fundamentally different from DOMA, however.

Depending.

That is, one could uphold the constitutionality of DOMA, especially sections protecting state’s rights, but find against Prop 8 based on the specific circumstances (rights taken away from a targeted minority by plebecite).

In that vein, I think it’s entirely possible that the SCOTUS will punt on Prop 8, because it doesn’t settle and larger issues, and focus instead on the DOMA cases as they come up. The upshot of that might well be legalized gay marriage in CA and a firebreak for the remainder of the country where SSM is not desired. I have no idea what will happen for federal marriage, but, again, that has nothing to do with 8. I think the court will sever and fail to hear the case.

Stay tuned kids – the loss in WI today to me signals that Dems are in serious trouble come November. If we revert to a GOP administration again, with the Dems reluctant to wield minority power the way that the GOP does in the Senate, I’m very concerned that we could see 2+ SCOTUS seats handed to ultraconservatives, especially if it’s during Romney’s first term as he positions himself for re-election.

customartist

June 6th, 2012

Email to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/show/?s=generalcomments&hdln=4

Hello,
I am concerned that your repeated airing this morning of the Prop 8 trial rezults include one significant clip of a Drag Queen/Painted-Faced Nun, RATHER THAN Lawyers, Judges, Photos of Litigants, etc.

Who made this decision?

Is this really what CNN sees as representative to this important legal case?

This is completely derrogatory and non-representative of the actual events. Please do not ridicule that which should be serious reporting?

iDavid

June 6th, 2012

Out of 25 judges en banc, 21 said “no” to hearing the case, with 3 out if 4 that voted “yes” to hearing the case, writing descents.
Council in support of Prop 8 laments: “Perhaps the most positive news from today’s decision is that the court has stayed the decision up to and including the time that the United States Supreme Court finally decides this case,” Pugno said in a brief statement. “We will promptly file our appeal to the nation’s highest court and look forward to a positive outcome on behalf of the millions of Californians who believe in traditional marriage.”
Though I can’t imagine the SC taking a case where approx 24/5 fed circuit judges have given thumbs down, I will be very interested to see if Pugno keeps his word and files “promptly” w SCOTUS.
With no new “evidence” in Pugno’s pockets, it seems he is doing nothing more than crying over losing his shirt and is poutingly resentful towards the courts rather than actually thinking of providing justice for all Americans.
If he wants to continue to fall on his own dagger, he is certainly having a perfect martyr moment.

Andrew

June 6th, 2012

In the meantime, please please please keep spending the Church’s money on this. By all means, between this and paying for all the child rape, perhaps the bankrupted dioceses will reconsider how they choose to leverage the donations of their hard working church members.

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.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1979: Gay Law Students Challenge Pacific Telephone's Hiring Practices -- and Win

Today In History, 1986: Scientists Trace HIV to 1951

Born On This Day, 1819: Walt Whitman

Born On This Day, 1918: Bob Hull

Emphasis Mine

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1980: Tickets, Tux, and a Court Order -- A Male Couple Attends Senior Prom

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.