• Appeals Court Turns Back Attempt to Stall DOMA Challenge

    September 24, 2012

    , , , ,

    No Comments

    The Second Circuit will hear oral arguments in Edith Windsor’s case September 27.

    A U.S. appeals court has dealt another setback to the Republicans in Congress who are defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday denied the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s request to suspend oral arguments in lesbian widow Edith Windsor’s case against DOMA. Windsor is seeking repayment of estate taxes she would not have owed had her marriage been recognized by the federal government.

    Windsor and her lawyers have asked the Supreme Court to review her case, and because of this, the Republican-led BLAG, which has tried to stall several DOMA challenges, proposed bypassing the appeals court. BLAG took up the defense of DOMA after the Obama administration declared it would no longer do so.

    However, in the original filing, Windsor’s lawyers noted the importance of the Second Circuit hearing the case, as it is the only circuit in which all states allow same-sex couples to marry. The circuit consists of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

    “Therefore, Windsor suggests it is ‘vitally important that the Second Circuit be heard on this issue and be heard as expeditiously as possible in order to ensure that legally married same-sex couples in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont are protected from the daily unconstitutional burdens and indignities imposed by DOMA’ and ‘this Court may provide important guidance to other courts throughout the country (as well as the Supreme Court) on the appropriate level of scrutiny for laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,’” reports Prop8TrialTracker.com.

    Oral arguments in Windsor’s case will be heard September 27.

    View the original article here

  • Plaintiffs Ask Supreme Court Not to Hear Prop. 8

    September 20, 2012

    , , , ,

    No Comments

    The legal journey of Proposition 8 may be coming to a close, depending on if the case is accepted by the nation’s highest court. Same-sex couples and plaintiffs (from left) Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarrillo look on at a news conference following a hearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6, 2010, in San Francisco. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) 

    Lawyers for the gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Brown and Perry v. Schwarzenegger), the federal case challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, today filed a brief asking the nation’s highest court not to hear the case. If the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case, lower court rulings that found Prop. 8 unconstitutional will stand and marriage equality will be restored in California, possibly by the end of this year.

    “The Ninth Circuit found that eliminating the ability of gay and lesbian couples to have their relationships designated as marriages — and relegating them to separate and unequal domestic partnerships — achieves nothing except the marginalization of gay and lesbian individuals and their relationships, and therefore cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” plaintiffs’ attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in today’s brief.Last month, proponents of the 2008 ballot initiative filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the rulings by the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court. In both earlier hearings, the courts found that Prop. 8 was based in animus against gays and lesbians, and was therefore unconstitutional.In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today’s brief cites that ruling, saying it “reflects a correct and straightforward application of settled Supreme Court precedent.”It is unclear when the Supreme Court will decide whether or not it will hear the case. Speculation abounds regarding the scope of a potential decision, which could be limited to California or theoretically invalidate same-sex marriage bans across the country. The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sole sponsor of the legal challenge, has more in-depth information on the case, including a timeline charting the case’s progress thus far. 

    View the original article here