Prop 8 Stay Still In Effect Until August 18
The federal judge who ruled that California Prop. 8 violated the U.S. Constitution, and who temporarily stayed his ruling pending further arguments, has now denied the motion to stay entry of judgment of his decision.
Judge Vaugh R. Walker just entered an Order which would allow California officials to begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. BUT, he stayed all further proceedings until August 18 to give time for an application to the 9th Circuit.
None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED toenter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.
There are some interesting issues raised by the stay. Judge Walker found that the parties seeking a stay may not have “standing” to appeal, meaning that they may not have a protectable interest since state officials were not also appealing:
Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal…. As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal. In light of those concerns,proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction. As regards the stay, however, the uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success.
This highlights the unusual nature of the litigation, in which state officials charged with enforceing state law refused to defend Prop. 8 in federal court. The consequences are not that predictable, as the case makes its way up on appeal. Some possibilities are that the 9th Circuit could deny a stay and the appeal on this basis; or alternatively it calls into question whether there ever should have been a trial since no party with standing opposed the lawsuit.
As to the second part of the test for a stay, Judge Walker again emphasized that the State was not claiming any harm:
Both plaintiffs and the state defendants have disavowed the harms identified by proponents.
The posture in which this case is being presented on appeal makes the course of an appeal very unusual. There is a collusive aspect to the litigation, in which none of the parties Judge Walker deemed to have standing actually had a controversy.
I’m not prepared to take a position yet on how this standing issue will affect the appeal, it’s just too complicated; but it is clear that there are some serious legal issues before an appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court would even reach the merits of whether Prop. 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.
Perry v. Schwarzennegger – Judge Walker Order Re Stay http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf
Ted Olson May Be Too Smart By Half
Fed Judge Finds Calif. Prop. 8 Unconstitutional
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
A.W. the Az case and another clearly more applicable one are discussed by Link. And you could have found that simply by clicking on the hyperlink in Prof Jacobson's post.
Actually calling Diamond more clearly applicable is a dubious thing. if you mean in the sense that the S.C. didn't cast some doubt on it, fair enough. but the facts in the Yniguez case are actually identical in every relevant respect.
Bluntly i feel that the suggestion in the S.C. appeal on that case that the 9th circuit ruled incorrectly is wrong. If you do not credit the proponents of an initiative like this, then you are in essence giving a veto to the state officials over their own state constitutions.
Yniguez should have at least been discussed.
btw, ed whelan has more on the subject here: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243232/prop-8-proponents-motion-ninth-circuit-stay-standing-ed-whelan
Worth a read.
This judge is out of control. Its time for some adult supervision in the 9th circuit. i know some of those judges out there can do it, its time for one of them to step up. this ruling needs to be vacated because the judge should have disqualified himself from the start.
Time magazine today:
[quote]ut if the appellate judges agree with Walker that the proponents lack standing to appeal, the case may never reach the appellate courts at all, at least not on its merits. That would mean a win for gay marriage in California, as it rejoins the five other states (and D.C.) where gay marriage is legal. But it would also mean that the case would have much less national importance. The first federal decision — Walker's — ruling in favor of gay marriage would remain the only one, and would have no direct impact on marriage laws in any other state.
And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet's nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. "If the proponents don't have standing to appeal, then it's entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial," Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. "This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial."
Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don't have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn't have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene — but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.[/quote]
Leave a Comment