Anthony Kennedy Halts Gay Marriage In Idaho

[MohRokTah]

Anthony Kennedy Halts Gay Marriage In Idaho

Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order to halt same-sex marriage in Idaho on Wednesday after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state's ban one day earlier.

Kennedy, who has jurisdiction over emergency appeals to rulings at the 9th Circuit, ordered that the lawyers for the same-sex couples suing to ax the ban respond to Idaho's appeal by Thursday, Oct. 9 by 5 p.m.

The move comes after the Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear seven cases about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, instead letting several lower court rulings against them take effect.

...

TPM Link

[longship]

1. AFAIK, halted for one day pending a decision by the court.

Again, AFAIK, standard procedure in this situation.

We'll know tomorrow, I guess.

[MohRokTah]

3. More likely Monday if Cert is granted or Tuesday if Cert is denied. eom

[longship]

5. Well, your OP says tomorrow.

And after yesterday's decision to pass on these cases, I can't see SCOTUS deciding this one any other way than vacating the stay tomorrow.

[MohRokTah]

6. That's when the attorney's have to respond to Idaho's appeal.

The SCOTUS announces cases they grant Certiorari on every Monday. No sooner. The earliest they announce denial of Cert is Tuesdays, but it can come as late as next Friday.

That assumes they consider the appeal on Friday of this week, which I assume because of the Thursday deadline.

[longship]

7. I stand corrected. You are correct.

But there's little doubt that they will vacate the stay when they do decide, given yesterday's non-decision and vacated stays in the other districts. I hope that they decide soon.

[MohRokTah]

8. I'm hopeful this is just Kennedy deciding to stand with procedure.

It does open the possibility he was holding out for some specific case he would feel free to rule against marriage equality, though.

If this court did that, and you know it's possible, they could with a single decision wipe out every legal marriage between same sex couples already in existence.

Scary.

[hifiguy]

12. It is just a matter of days.

And the likelihood that the vote to grant cert will change from that on the previous cases is as small a non-zero number as you can imagine.

[MohRokTah]

13. Still waiting on the 6th Circuit.

It could come any day now.

Then you have cases before the 5th and the 11th, both much more conservative.

And the 8th upheld a ban in 2006, but there aren't any cases before it at this time. That case was obviously ruled on prior to Windsor and so many of the rulings recently have cited Windsor.

If any one of those four rule to uphold a gay marriage ban, and all four are more conservative than those who have struck down the bans, the SCOTUS will have to take the case. I simply cannot see the court allowing different precedents in different circuits to stand for long.

[malthaussen]

2. What I find interesting about this...

... is that the Court's recent non-ruling would seem to indicate that the men on the Court are not united in wanting to ban gay marriage, leading to the question of which of the five is opposed. (And somehow, I doubt it's Scalia) Does Kennedy's ruling indicate that he is in favor of such bans? Possibly not, as he may have thought that he had no legal grounds to reject the stay.

-- Mal

[MohRokTah]

4. It only takes four to grant cert and take up a case.

So two of the wingnuts are balking.

My guess is Kennedy and Roberts.

[hifiguy]

10. My guess - and it is just a guess - is that

neither Roberts nor Kennedy voted to grant cert. That Fat Tony, Uncle Ruckus and Soapy Sam did is a given. I have said it here before and will say it again - Roberts is a very smart guy, like him or not, and Chief Justices do keep an eye on their legacies. Roberts does not want to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history as marriage equality is something that is a lead-pipe lock to happen at some point. Roberts also doesn't want to confront the issue - and the scathing Posner demolition of the anti-SSM rationale - if it can be resolved by the Courts of Appeal.

[hifiguy]

9. This is not out of the ordinary.

Appellate procedure allows for such things as a matter of course. No one's jimmies should be getting rustled just yet, and it doesn't mean that the SCOTUS as a whole will hear an immediate appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision.

[MohRokTah]

11. Yes, but it still resulted in this:

Mistie Tolman, left, cries as she gets a hug from friend Lisa Perry after she and her partner Karen McMillian, far right, were denied the opportunity for a marriage license inside the Ada County Courthouse in Boise, Idaho on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2014. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has temporarily blocked an appeals court ruling that declared gay marriage legal in the states of Idaho and Nevada. The order came minutes after Idaho on Wednesday filed an emergency request for an immediate stay. The state's request said that without a stay, state and county officials would have been required to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (AP Photo/Idaho Statesman, Kyle Green)

It further serves as a reminder that the SCOTUS could actually take up a case and Kennedy could join with the wingnuts and could rule against marriage equality, invalidating every same sex marriage in the nation with a single ruling.

Until it's set in stone, that will always be a possibility. Don't forget, the SCOTUS once took freedom away from a man and made him a slave with one ruling.

[hifiguy]

14. Which sucks, but a temporary stay is just that.