Red Mass and Modernized Website Herald Opening of Supreme Court's 2014 Term

The Supreme Court's new term opens today.  To mark the occasion, the annual Catholic Red Mass was held yesterday in Washington's Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle.  According to the Legal Times, four of the Court's six Catholic Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas) and two of its three Jewish Justices (Breyer and Kagan) attended. So did a number of D.C. lower court judges.

Tomorrow the Court will hear oral arguments in a religious accommodation case-- Holt v. Hobbs.  At issue is whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act permits Arkansas to bar a Muslim prison inmate from growing a one-half inch beard. (See prior related posting.) All the briefs filed in the case are available from SCOTUSblog.

The Court usually issues a long list of certiorari denials on its first day of the term, and might grant review in additional cases as well.  Among the most closely watched are a number of petitions for review in same-sex marriage cases.

The Court also begins the Term displaying a revamped website with a modernized look and improved navigation features. (Court press release.)

Louisiana State Court Invalidates State's Same-Sex Marriage Bans

Yesterday, a Louisiana state trial court declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere unconstitutional.  The full text of the opinion has apparently not yet been publicly released, but BuzzFeed News reports that it was permitted to review a copy of the decision on the condition that it not post it or quote directly from it. (The decision was sealed because it involves the adoption of a minor.) BuzzFeed reports that the 23-page opinion invalidates the bans on the basis of the equal protection, due process and Full-Faith-And-Credit clauses. The Louisiana Department of Justice plans to appeal directly to the state Supreme Court and has already asked the trial court to suspend its order pending appeal. The trial court's invalidation of the state's same sex marriage ban comes less than a month after a Louisiana federal district court upheld the ban. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: Here is the full opinion in Costanza v. Caldwell, (LA Dist. Ct., Sept. 22, 2014).

Group Says Justice Ginsburg Made Improper Comment On Possible Review of Same-Sex Marraige Cases

Liberty Counsel issued a press release yesterday contending that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg violated the Judicial Code of Conduct in remarks she made to an audience at the University of Minnesota Law School.  Ginsburg apparently told the audience that there would be "no need for us to rush" in reviewing challenges to same-sex marriage bans if the 6th Circuit in four cases pending before it does not create a split among circuits by upholding the bans.  She continued saying that there would be "some urgency" to review if a split is created.  Liberty Counsel says that this amounted to comment on the merits of an impending case. Technically, the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct is not binding on Supreme Court Justices.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In 3 Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in cases from Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii challenging same-sex marriage bans. Audio recordings of the full arguments in each of the cases is available: Latta v. Otter (Idaho); Sevcik v. Sandoval (Nevada); Jackson  v. Abercrombie  (Hawaii). Subsequent to the district court opinion being appealed, Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  MSNBC, reporting on the oral arguments, called it "a rough day for marriage equality opponents."

32 States Ask Supreme Court To Grant Cert In Same-Sex Marriage Cases

As reported yesterday by AP, in two separate amicus briefs a total of 32 states have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to decide on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. Led by Massachusetts, 15 states that allow same-sex marriage joined a brief in Herbert v. Kitchen, the 10th Circuit case invalidating Utah's ban. (Full text of brief.) (Mass. AG press release.)  17 other states led by Colorado filed a brief in Rainey v. Bostic, the 4th Circuit Virginia case and Smith v. Bishop, the 10th Circuit Oklahoma case.

7th Circuit Invalidates Same-Sex Marriage Bans In Indiana and Wisconsin

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Baskin v. Bogan, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2014), affirmed district court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. The unanimous opinion, written by Judge Posner in his unquely cogent style, takes on and counters each argument in favor of same-sex marriage bans put forward by each state. He particularly emphasizes the protection-of-children argument on which Indiana relied exclusively:

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage  because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.

He derides Indiana's arguments, summarizing them as follows:

Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

Moving to Wisconsin's ban, Judge Posner, quoting (among others) Justice Holmes and John Stuart Mill, counters each of four additional justifications the state puts forward for banning same-sex marriage-- tradition, the need to move cautiously, respect for the democratic process and damage to traditional marriage. Posner describes the last of these as an argument that "allowing [homosexuals] to marry degrades the institution of marriage (as might happen if people were allowed to marry their pets or their sports cars)...."  He summarizes:

the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.

As reported by the New York Times, yesterday's decision was handed donw only nine days after the court heard oral arguments in the case.

District Court Upholds Louisiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A Louisiana federal district court yesterday became only the second court (see prior posting) after the U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor decision to uphold a state law banning same-sex marriage.  In Robicheaux v. Caldwell,  (ED LA, Sept. 3, 2014), the court rejected the argument that heightened scrutiny should apply, and concluded that Louisiana had a rational basis for addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic process. It held:

This Court is persuaded that Louisiana has a legitimate interest...whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others...in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents.... 

This Court has arduously studied the volley of nationally orchestrated court rulings against states whose voters chose in free and open elections, whose legislatures, after a robust, even fractious debate and exchange of competing, vigorously differing views, listened to their citizens regarding the harshly divisive and passionate issue on same-sex marriage. The federal court decisions thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.  Courts that, in the words of Justice Scalia in a different context ... appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body. 

SCOTUSblog reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Issues Stay In Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order (full text) in McQuigg v. Bostic, staying the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals order that invalidated Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  The order delays the 4th Circuit's mandate until a petition for Supreme Court review is disposed of.  SCOTUS Blog reports on the stay..

In Tennessee, A Rare Win For Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage

In the face of a long string of federal cases in recent months striking down state laws that bar recognition of same-sex marriage, the opponents of same-sex marriage last week realized a rare victory. In Borman v. Pyles-Borman, (TN Cir. Ct., Aug. 5, 2014), a Tennessee state trial court upheld Tennessee's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision comes in a divorce case involving a same-sex couple legally married in Iowa, but now residing in Tennessee.  A Tennessee court presumably cannot grant a divorce unless the marriage is first recognized in the state.

In upholding Tennessee's anti-recognition law against an equal protection challenge, the court wrote in part:

In the Windsor case the Supreme Court opines that if a state finds same-sex marriage to be valid, the Federal Government cannot trump that State's law. The Supreme Court does not go the fmal step and fmd that a State that defines marriages as a union of one (1) man and one (l) woman is unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one State's refusal to accept as valid another States valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.... 

The Court finds that marriage is·a fundamental right. However, neither the Tennessee Supreme Court nor the United States Supreme Court has ever decided that this fundamental right under a state's laws extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one (1) man and one (1) woman.... The Legislative Branch of Tennessee and the voters of Tennessee have said that the definition of marriage should be as it always has been.....

The court then adopts language from the state's brief in finding a rational basis for the state's traditional definition.

Moving to the full-faith-and-credit challenge, the court concludes:

The laws of Iowa concerning same sex marriage is so diametrically opposed to Tennessee's laws, and Tennessee's own legitimate public policy concerning same-sex marriage, that Tennessee is not required by the U.S. Constitution to give full faith and credit to a valid marriage of a same-sex couple in Iowa. 

Yesterday Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. Earlier this month, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a separate challenge to Tennesseee's marriage recognition laws. (See prior posting.)

4th Circuit Refuses Stay In Invalidation of Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By a 2-1 vote yesterday, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order (full text)  in Bostic v. Schaeffer refusing to delay the mandate in its decision last month invalidating Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  SCOTUSblog reports that attorneys representing the county clerk who is defending the same-sex marriage ban on appeal say they will seek a stay from the Supreme Court before the 4th Circuit's mandate takes effect next Wednesday. A petition for certiorari has already been filed seeking Supreme Court review of the underlying decision. (See prior posting.) Washington Post has more on the plans to seek a Supreme Court stay.

Ohio Gubernatorial Candidates Take Different Approaches To Public Religious Expression

Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch explores the difference in the public expression of religion by Ohio's two gubernatorial candidates:

Gov. John Kasich doesn’t hide his religious convictions, talking about them frequently in speeches and at other public gatherings.

Ed FitzGerald holds religious values but rarely talks about them.

Although they espouse many of the same principles, the contrast in how Ohio’s gubernatorial candidates apply their Christianity to their public life and policies is stark.

While Democrat FitzGerald, the Cuyahoga County executive, favors abortion rights and supports same-sex marriage as public policy, the lifelong Catholic won’t say how he feels about those issues personally....

Kasich, a Republican who was raised Catholic but became a Protestant after his parents were killed by a drunken driver in 1987, cites God regularly in public, such as in justifying the building of a Holocaust Memorial on the Statehouse grounds, expanding Medicaid to more than a quarter-million Ohioans, in graduation speeches, in his State of the State addresses and even during an event launching a campaign to prevent the elderly from falling....

Cert. Petitions Filed In Oklahoma and Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Following quickly on the heels of Utah's Aug. 5 certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), certiorari petitions have been filed in two more same-sex marriage cases:

A petition (full text) was filed Aug. 6 in Smith v. Bishop, a case in which the 10th Circuit held that Oklahoma's ban on granting licences for same-sex marriages performed in the state is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the petition, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog points out that this is the longest-running federal court challenge to same-sex marriage bans, having been filed in 2004.

On Aug. 8, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in Rainey v. Bostic. In the case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the petition, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog comments that: "The Virginia case has special symbolic significance, because that is the state that produced the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court in 1967 struck down a state law barring marriage by couples of different races."

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in same-sex marriage cases from 4 states.  Here are links to the audio of the argument in each case:

• Michigan: DeBoer v. Snyder (Oral argument)
• Ohio: Obergefell v. Himes; Henry v. Himes (Oral argument).
• Kentucky: Bourke v. Beshar; Love v. Beshar (Oral argument).
• Tennessee: Tanco v. Haslem (Oral argument).

Detroit Free Press and MLive reported on the oral arguments.

Utah Files First Cert Petition In Same-Sex Marriage Challenges

The state of Utah-- acting 6 weeks before its deadline-- yesterday became the first to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the growing number of decisions striking down state bans on same sex-marriage. The petition (full text) in Herbert v. Kitchen urges Supreme Court review of the 10th Circuit's 2-1 decision (see prior posting), saying in part:

This case presents an immensely important question: whether the United States Constitution compels states to adopt a single marriage policy that every individual is allowed “to marry the person of their choice.”... The Tenth Circuit said yes and struck down Utah’s definition—statutorily enacted and adopted into the Utah Constitution by two-thirds of voters in a statewide referendum—that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That ruling deprives Utah citizens of the “fundamental right” to “act through a lawful electoral process,” ... and ignores that the Constitution says nothing about how states must define marriage.

Salt Lake Tribune reports on the filing, and SCOTUS Blog has more background.

Trial Court Invalidates Florida's Ban On Recognizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Tampa Bay Times reports that in a ruling on Monday, a Broward County, Florida trial court judge invalidated the 2008 amendment to the Florida Constitution that prohibits recognition of any "legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof." The ruling comes in a case in which plaintiff  Heather Brassner asked the Florida court to dissolve her same-sex Vermont civil union. The court concluded that it could not do so without first ruling on the constitutionality of Florida's same-sex marriage ban. After ruling, the court immediately stayed the order, pending appeal. This is the third Florida trial court ruling since July invalidating Florida's same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's opinion in Brassner v. Lade does not appear to be available online yet, but here is the full text of plaintiff's motion for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

4th Circuit Invalidates Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Continuing an unbroken string of victories for marriage equality proponents, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, in a 2-1 decision, struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. This is the second federal appeals court to rule on same-sex marriage bans.  In Bostic v. Schaefer, (4th Cir., July 28, 2014), the majority held:

the Virginia Marriage Laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they prevent same-sex couples from marrying and prohibit Virginia from recognizing same-sex couples’ lawful out-of-state marriages. 

The court added:

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

As reported by the New York Times, the appeal to the 4th Circuit was carried forward by two court clerks after Virginia's attorney general refused to appeal the district court's decision striking down Virginia's bans. They are expected to seek a stay of the court's decision pending an en banc appeal or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Second Florida Trial Court Invalidates State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban; Stays Order

In Pareto v. Ruvin, (FL Cir. Ct., July 25, 2014), a Florida state trial court in Miami-Dade County held that Florida's ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.  While ordering the Miami-Dade County clerk of courts to modify its marriage license forms to encompass same-sex marriages, the court stayed its order pending expected appeals. The court excluded from its order the provision of Florida law barring recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, presumably because none of the plaintiffs before the court had been married elsewhere. Earlier this month, a Monroe County Florida trial court also struck down Florida's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the Miami-Dade County decision.

Colorado Same-Sex Marriage Laws Invalidated With Only Limited Stay

A Colorado federal district court yesterday issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Colorado's state constitutional and statutory provisions that deny same-sex couples the right to marry in Colorado and deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  In Burns v. Hickenlooper, (D CO, July 23, 2014), the defendants (the governor, the attorney general and a county clerk) did not oppose entry of the injunction since the 10th Circuit in a case from Utah had already held same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. (See prior posting,) Subsequently the 10th Circuit also invalidated Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) Much of yesterday's opinion focused on the question of whether the court should stay its order while the Utah case moves forward on appeal.  The court refused, but instead merely granted a one-month stay in order for defendants to seek relief from the 10th Circuit.  In refusing a broader stay, the court the rejected the argument that U.S Supreme Court action summarily granting stays in other same-sex marriage litigation requires a similar stay here:

Based on the most recent stay, it appears to the Court that it may well be that a message is being sent by the Supreme Court. But this Court is not some modern day haruspex skilled in the art of divination. This Court cannot – and, more importantly, it will not – tell the people of Colorado that the access to this or any other fundamental right will be delayed because it “thinks” or “perceives” the subtle – or not so subtle – content of a message not directed to this case. The rule of law demands more.

Scotus Blog and AP report on the decision.  According to the Denver Post, Colorado attorney general John Suthers filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit an hour after the district court decision was handed down.

10th Circuit Wades Through Procedural Morass In Invalidating Part of Oklahoma's Same-Sex Marriage Provisions

The 10th Circuit last week, in a case generating 84 pages of opinions that focus extensively on procedural issues, struck down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, but dismissed for lack of standing the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  The unusual posture of the case stemmed from the fact that the 10th Circuit had already struck down as violative of the 14th Amendment Utah's bans on same-sex sex marriage and Utah's ban on recognizing such marriages performed in other jurisdictions (see prior posting). So in Bishop v. Smith, (10th Cir., July 18, 2014), the question was whether anything distinguished the challenge to Oklahoma's laws from the already decided challenge to Utah's.

In a portion of the opinion that all 3 judges agreed to, the court held that the couple challenging Oklahoma's non-recognition provisions lacked standing because the only defendant in the case, the Clerk of Court for Tulsa County, has nothing to do with recognizing or not recognizing a marriage performed elsewhere. The majority, however, held that Oklahoma's ban on granting licences for same-sex marriages performed in the state is unconstitutional, as was Utah's similar ban. The majority's conclusion was not undermined by the fact that plaintiffs had challenged only Oklahoma's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and not the parallel statutory ban as well. The majority stayed their mandate pending disposition of any petition for certiorari that is filed with the Supreme Court.

Judge Holmes wrote a 27 page concurring opinion explaining why the district court had been correct in not relying on the "animus" theory in striking down Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality. Judge Kelley dissented in part, arguing that the couple challenging the ban on in-state same-sex marriages also lacked standing because they challenged only the state constitutional ban and not the parallel statutory prohibition.  Judge Kelley also disagreed on the merits, contending that "Same-gender marriage is a public policy choice for the states, and should not be
driven by a uniform, judge-made fundamental rights analysis." Scotus Blog reports on the decision.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court last week issued an order (full text) in Herbert v. Evans, staying pending appeal to the 10th Circuit the district court's preliminary injunction requiring Utah to recognize same-sex marriages performed during the gap period before a district court's order was stayed. (See prior posting.) Here is the petition to Justice Sotomayor requesting the stay.

State Trial Court Voids Florida's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages; Appeal Stays Decision

In Huntsman v. Heavlin,(FL Cir. Ct., July 17, 2014), a Florida state trial court judge enjoined the clerk of Monroe County, Florida from enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriages. Finding that the ban violate's the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, the court ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to plaintiffs and other similarly-situated same-sex couples. According to the Washington Blade, the judge's order is automatically stayed because the Florida Attorney General quickly filed a notice of appeal.