The US Supreme Court has ordered a stay of any further same-sex marriages in Utah until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decides the case.
The Utah state government’s request for the stay had gone to justice Sonia Sotomayor and she had referred it to the full court that issued a very brief statement that did not give any hint about what it felt about the merits of the case.
This is not really a major surprise. The justices likely felt that overturning the state’s marriage laws was something that should not be decided by a single District Court judge. The Appeals Court has asked both sides to submit their briefs by the end of this month.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy says
And why not? That’s one of the reasons that District Courts exist, is it not? The state law in question blatantly violates the Equal Protection clauses in the U.S. Constitution, as well as those in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has Constitutional force since the U.S. is a signatory to it, the judge’s decision was clearly correct, and the plaintiffs still haven’t shown any harm, in this or any of the other ridiculous suits they’ve brought elsewhere. There’s no valid reason to take them seriously for any further length of time.
jamessweet says
This is what I had to say about it on Facebook:
Mano Singham says
@#1,
While I agree with you in general, every litigant has a right to at least one appeal before the decision is considered binding. in this case, that appeal is to the Court of Appeals. So the Supreme Court likely thought that the Appeals Court should weigh in on the constitutionality before the decision is considered binding on the entire state. I actually think the Appeals Court will agree with the District Court judge. If they do, it may well result in an appeal to the Supreme Court. It will then bo too late for the Supreme Court to hear it in this calendar year, so the interesting issue is whether the Appeals Court will issue a stay of the order to grant same-sex licenses. They refused earlier. If they refuse again to grant a stay, then same-sex couples in Utah will have until around spring of 2015 to get married.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy says
And they’re getting it. That doesn’t mean they get to screw everyone else over while they arse around some more. As I understand it, an injunction like this requires that they be able to show they’ll be harmed by it going forward while they file their appeal. They haven’t. The end.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy says
The above is especially true since they’re making the same (lack of a) case here that they tried in California, which a Federal court already said was no good.
corwyn says
Anyone know how many couples were married in Utah in the interim?
colnago80 says
Re Jamessweet @ #2
And if we recall, the 9th circuit issued a very interesting ruling in the Prop 8 case, which SCOTUS let stand. In a nutshell, they ruled that while there states were not constitutionally compelled to allow marriage equality, they WERE constitutionally prohibited from taking it away once it had been granted.
The Supreme Court did no such thing. The ruling was that the plaintiffs had no standing to appeal the district court’s ruling so that the appeal to the 9th circuit was null and void and that it was the district court’s ruling that stood.
colnago80 says
Re corwyn @ #6
I saw a figure of 900.