Supreme Court Grants Prop 8, DOMA Cases
The Supreme Court will review California's ban on same-sex marriage as well as portions of the Defense of Marriage Act.
SCOTUSBlog reported this afternoon that the court had accepted the Prop 8 case on the question of whether the 14th Amendment prevented the state from establishing a traditional definition of marriage. But it also will review whether the backers of the initiative, passed in 2008, have standing to pursue the case.
The court also agreed to review one of right cases challenging aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act. The U.S. vs. Edith Windsor case, as it is called, challenged Section 3 of DOMA, which restricts the federal government's definition of marriage to that of a union between a man and a woman. The section of the law prevents same-sex married couples from receiving an array of federal benefits. But the court also will consider procedural questions after the Obama administration declined to defend the law and a group of House Republicans instead mounted their own defense. Those questions of standing could ultimately prevent the court from issuing a decision on the merits of same-sex marriage arguments.
"The Court, one might say in summary, has agreed to take up virtually all of the key issues about same-sex marriage, but has given itself a way to avoid final decisions on the merits issues," wrote Lyle Denniston on SCOTUS Blog.
Oral argument in the case is expected next spring, perhaps in March.
"The moment we have been fighting for has finally arrived," Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said in a statement. The org, backed by a group of entertainment and political activists, has been pursuing the federal challenge to Prop 8, with Ted Olson and David Boies leading their legal team.
This will mark the first time that the high court has weighed in on same-sex marriage since 1972, when it dismissed an appeal of a Minnesota Surpeme Court decision that marriage was limited to a man and a woman. But the Supreme Court's order then was just one sentence: "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."
The exact wording of the grant of the two cases is below:
HOLLINGSWORTH, DENNIS, ET AL. V. PERRY, KRISTIN M., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In
addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties
are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether
petitioners have standing under Article III, §2 of the
Constitution in this case.
12-307
UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In
addition to the question presented by the petition, the
parties are directed to brief and argue the following
questions: Whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the
court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of
jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of
Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
1
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Comments