Tag: 9th Circuit Court

Posted on

9th Circuit Court Rejects Alaska’s Request For Review Of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Alaska’s request for a full en banc review of the 9th Circuit Court decision which struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban has received a big fat “no.”

In fact, not one of the 29 judges on the court asked for a vote to review the ruling.

Meanwhile, the state is currently on the hook for over $100,000 in court costs defending the unconstitutional law:

Gov.-elect Bill Walker said Thursday he plans to evaluate the case to see whether his administration will continue to defend the ban, indicating a shifting stance from before the election, when he called the current administration’s defense an “unwise” use of state money.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Law said the state had spent more than $100,000 defending against the lawsuit as of Oct. 31. The total bill could be more than $359,000.

Posted on

Alaska Governor Requests En Banc Hearing On Same-Sex Marriage In 9th Circuit Court

Alaska’s Gov. Sean Parnell has requested an en banc review of the recent same-sex marriage ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which effectively struck down the state’s ban on marriage equality.

Saying the original 9th Circuit ruling was based on “erroneous circuit precedent.” Gov. Parnell says the citizens of Alaska are “stripped of any ability to vindicate their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation.'”

Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho has filed a similar request with the 9th Circuit for an en banc hearing regarding same-sex marriage.

You can read Parnell’s full brief below:

Posted on

Montana Judge Asked To Rule On Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Montana’s same-sex marriage ban has been challenged by four couples with the request that the judge rule without going to court:

ACLU Montana legal director Jim Taylor says the 9th Circuit’s recent decision to strike down similar bans elsewhere in the West should convince U.S. District Judge Brian Morris to rule in their favor.

Montana is part of the 9th Circuit and district judges use decisions from the appellate court as precedents for their rulings.

Posted on

Ninth Circuit Grants Stay In Alaska Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Until Noon Friday

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the state of Alaska a stay on a district court’s ruling that the state’s same-sex marriage ban in unconstitutional until Friday, October 17th at noon to allow Alaska an opportunity to seek a stay from the United States Supreme Court.

Should SCOTUS deny the request, the stay dissolves at 12:00 p.m. PDT on October 17, 2014.

Read the ruling here.

Posted on

Nevada Haters Ask For Do-Over Because Ninth Circuit Court Stacked The Deck

As Nevadan gays and lesbians enjoy the freedom to marry across the state after last week’s unanimous ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of same-sex marriage, the lawyer that represented the anti-gay Coalition for the Protection of Marriage has talked the group out of a bit more money with the idea of asking for a rehearing in the 9th Circuit en banc because, allegedly, the 9th Circuit stacked the deck in the gays favor.

Take note –  this is how to lose a case before you start.

Monte Stewart, lawyer for the Coalition, says that a full panel of judges should rehear the case due to the “high likelihood that the number of Judges [Stephen] Reinhardt and [Marsha] Berzon’s assignments to the Relevant Cases, including this and the Hawaii and Idaho marriage cases (which we treat as one for these purposes), did not result from a neutral judge-assignment process.”

Stewart says his claim is backed up by the result of “Careful statistical analysis” by Dr. James H. Matis.

From Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed:

Stewart went further, writing, “The appearance of unfairness is not a close question here. Even without the aid of professional statisticians, a reasonable person will immediately sense that something is amiss when one judge out of more than thirty is assigned over a four and one-half year period to five of this Circuit’s eleven cases involving the federal constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians, another to four of those cases, and both of them to the momentous ‘gay marriage’ cases.”

In an affidavit filed and signed by Stewart with the filing, he noted the legal team’s decision to obtain the analysis from Matis and contains Stewart’s personal conclusion that the panel of judges that heard the Nevada marriage case was one of the most favorable possible panels for the same-sex couple plaintiffs and “among the least favorable” for “the man-woman marriage side.” He then added that “such preferences and conclusions are known and understood by all at the Ninth Circuit involved with the judge-assignment process.”

Because of this claimed “appearance of unfairness,” Stewart argued in the request that an en banc rehearing is needed in order “to vindicate the values and integrity of [the appeals court’s] own judge-assignment process.”

What is important here, according to Stewart, is the “vivid appearance of unfairness.” See, he’s really concerned for the folks at the Ninth. What a guy.

Not a winning hand to play, if you ask me.

By the way, I’m not even sure if it was established that the anti-gay “Coalition” even had standing to argue against gay rights in the first place.

You can read the full brief here.

Posted on

Nevada: Same-Sex Marriage SNAFU Due To Stay By Idaho

The Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage, anti-gay organization that defended Nevada’s marriage ban after the governor and attorney general dropped their opposition, has filed a request to join Idaho Gov. Butch Otter’s request for an emergency stay until an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit Court.

Early today Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a stay order that seems to apply to both Idaho and Nevada, although Nevada did not apply for a stay. There is considerable chatter among the legal eagles as to whether that was Kennedy’s intent, but in the meantime no marriages will take place today in Nevada.

Officials at Lambda Legal, the gay rights advocacy organization that argued the Nevada case on behalf of eight same-sex couples, noted that only Idaho sought the stay.

Jon Davidson, the group’s legal director, called for the nation’s highest court to clarify whether Nevada can issue marriage licenses. He argued the Nevada and Idaho cases had been consolidated only for purposes of Tuesday’s decision, and that Nevada’s inclusion in the stay may have been a mistake. “Nothing prevents clerks in Nevada from proceeding to issue licenses today,” he said.

Nevada didn’t seek a stay. Gov. Brian Sandoval and state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto issued a joint statement late Tuesday saying the state would take no further action. Sandoval, a Republican former federal district judge, said he determined the state had no way to defend its position after an appeals court ruling in another case in February.

So, now we wait to see if Kennedy will clarify his stay.

(via JMG)

Posted on

Ninth Circuit Ruling: Lessons of Our Constitutional History

From today’s ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on the unconstitutionality of Idaho and Nevada’s same-sex marriage bans.

I think this sums up a lot of truth:

“The lessons of our constitutional history are clear: inclusion strengthens, rather than weakens, our most important institutions.

“When we integrated our schools, education improved.

“When we opened our juries to women, our democracy became more vital.

“When we allowed lesbian and gay soldiers to serve openly in uniform, it enhanced unit cohesion.

“When same-sex couples are married, just as when opposite-sex couples are married, they serve as models of loving commitment to all.”

Posted on

HUGE NEWS! 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Nevada & Idaho Marriage Bans Unconstitutional

Via press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

Today’s decision, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, holds that “Idaho and Nevada’s marriage laws, by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states.”

The decision further states: “Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values.’ In any event, Idaho and Nevada’s asserted preference for opposite-sex parents does not, under heightened scrutiny, come close to justifying unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The Idaho case was brought in November 2013 by four same-sex couples: Sue Latta and Traci Ehlers, Lori and Sharene Watsen, Shelia Robertson and Andrea Altmayer, and Amber Beierle and Rachael Robertson. The couples are represented by Idaho attorneys Deborah Ferguson and Craig Durham of Ferguson Durham LLP and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). On September 8th, Ferguson argued before Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Marsha S. Berzon, and Ronald M. Gould that Idaho’s laws that ban marriage equality and prohibit the state from respecting the marriages of same-sex couples who married in other states violate the U.S. Constitution. The Idaho case was consolidated for purposes of the decision with Sevcik v. Sandoval, a case challenging Nevada’s marriage ban brought by same-sex couples represented by Lambda Legal.

Posted on

Oral arguments in 9th Circuit Court today for Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii

Today at 1pm Pacific time, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments regarding marriage equality for Idaho, Nevada (my home state), and Hawaii.

You can watch via YouTube below or by going to www.ca9.uscourts.gov and clicking the website’s link, “Live Oral Arguments.”

Idaho will get a full hour (equally split for both sides) for oral arguments.  Nevada will follow with 30 minutes total, and then Hawaii will have 20 minutes to make each side’s case.

If you want to follow the Twitter conversation, look for hashtag #9thCircuit