Skip to main content

The past few weeks have seen a flurry of new developments in the courts concerning DOMA and marriage equality cases. The proponents of Prop 8 - in Perry, the challenge to the California constitutional amendment - petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. Section 3 of DOMA was struck down yet again, this time by Judge Vanessa Bryant, an appointee of President George W. Bush, in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. And the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who is defending Section 3 of DOMA on behalf of House Republicans after the Justice Department decided to drop their defense, has lost a few requests for stays of proceedings in some DOMA cases. The sheer number of these cases can cause a lot of confusion and headaches; I'm told that even people who are solely focused on following DOMA cases are resorting to the use of spreadsheets to keep track of everything. So here is a series that is intended to be a rundown of where these cases stand after the latest developments. (Also, see jpmassar's excellent post from a few months ago; mine is just a follow-up to his post.)

This part will consist of cases that are currently before the Supreme Court. Since at this point only DOMA challenges and the Prop 8 challenge are before the Court, this post will focus primarily on DOMA. Future posts will be geared toward updates in the district and appeals courts, and those will include both DOMA and marriage equality cases.

A note regarding the cases that are currently before the Supreme Court: the Court is not in session until October. There will be a conference (to look at petitions for certiorari and vote on whether to review cases or not) on September 24 and another the following week. During a conference, either in late September or early October, the Court will decide whether to hear challenges to Section 3 of DOMA, and which cases it will review. Instead of writing this at the end of all the case updates on this post, I'll leave it up here as a note; so just assume that the Supreme Court will decide whether and which cases to hear on these dates.

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management/Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services

The Gill and Massachusetts cases were decided separately by the same district court judge, Nixon appointee Joseph Tauro, and then consolidated on appeal. Gill was filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and Massachusetts was filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In both cases, Judge Tauro struck down Section 3 of DOMA. (GLAD said it violated the equal protection principles in the Fifth Amendment and Massachusetts said it violated the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause. Judge Tauro agreed.) At the First Circuit, on appeal, GLAD, the Justice Department and the Massachusetts AG's office opposed the law; Paul Clement argued in favor of upholding the law, for BLAG. Notably, the oral argument at the First Circuit was the first time the Justice Department suggested that they were not going to defend Section 3 of DOMA "on any basis." Before, as per Attorney General Eric Holder's letter explaining the Government's decision to stop defending Section 3, the Government had agreed that Section 3 would pass the most lenient form of judicial scrutiny, rational basis. They had explained they favor application of a heightened form of judicial scrutiny, however, and Section 3 of DOMA easily fails that test. At the First Circuit, the Justice Department would not defend the law, even if it were scrutinized using the rational basis test.

The three-judge panel at the First Circuit, consisting of two Republican-appointed judges and one Democratic-appointed judge, unanimously struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Their decision applied a form of rational basis review that looks closely at laws that could be perceived to have been enacted with "animus" against a particular group, and they considered federalism concerns important in their review of the law as well.

On June 29, BLAG petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, asking them to review the First Circuit's opinion.

Then, on July 3, the Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari; they did so in Gill and in another case, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management. Gill, unlike Golinski, had been fully briefed, argued, and decided by an appeals court, so it is ready for Supreme Court review. The other two parties to these consolidated cases, Massachusetts and the Gill plaintiffs, also asked the Supreme Court to review the challenge: Massachusetts filed a reply brief to the petitions for certiorari and then filed its own petition; GLAD (the Gill plaintiffs) filed a reply brief agreeing that the Supreme Court should review the case and affirm the judgment. The Court will decide to review it or not at its conference, but there is an important caveat: Justice Elena Kagan may recuse herself from the Gill case because of her work as Solicitor General. During questioning at her confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court Justice, she pointed to Gill as a possible case meriting her recusal. It is, of course, up to each individual Justice's discretion to recuse or not, so she may decide not to after all. If she does recuse herself and the Justices decide to take the case (it takes four votes to grant review), there could be a 4-4 split on any final decision. This would mean the First Circuit's decision stands but there would be no wider precedent beyond that circuit.

One final note about Gill: these challenges to Section 3 of DOMA have been decided using differing standards of review. While BLAG referred to the standard of review used to decide Gill in its petition for certiorari as "novel", among other things, it is actually a relatively common way the courts have resolved cases that involve the rights of minority groups that typically have laws passed against them, but who are not considered to make up a "suspect classification." Certain classifications of people are considered "suspect" under equal protection principles, because classifying people in certain groups can hurt those groups. So, for example, race is a suspect classification. Laws that are racially-motivated are reviewed under strict scrutiny, the strictest form of review. Laws often fail this level of review because they have to be narrowly tailored and further a compelling government interest. (Rational basis, on the other hand, must only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. It has been said that as long as the reason for the law is framed in grammatically correct sentences it can pass rational basis review.) Right now, laws affecting gays and lesbians are only reviewed under rational basis (though, as noted, courts have applied this "rational basis with bite" standard that includes special consideration of animus.) This is why the Justice Department's involvement in DOMA litigation is exceedingly important: for the first time the United States Government is admitting that it has played a part in discriminating against gays and lesbians, and that any classifications of gays and lesbians for purposes of laws should be suspect. While the Justice Department has not taken a position on the precise level of scrutiny that should be afforded to laws affecting gays and lesbians, even a relatively heightened form of judicial review from what we have now would result in the courts striking down a lot more anti-gay legislation.

Romer v. Evans is emblematic of the type of review employed in Gill: in Romer, the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Colorado, an anti-gay amendment that eliminated antidiscrimination protections across the board for gays and lesbians in the state. The Court said that animus alone is no rational basis for a law. This follows from earlier cases, Cleburne and Moreno, which considered animus in reviewing laws that affected certain groups that were not part of a "suspect class." The type of review used in these cases is important: as you'll see, the Court, through the current petitions, will be presented with cases in which judges struck down Section 3 of DOMA, but did so by employing essentially three different forms of judicial scrutiny. While the Supreme Court can do what it wants (it is the last word on the United States Constitution), it could prove useful to present the Court with many options if they decide to finally take on the issue of the level of scrutiny that should be applied to cases that impact gays and lesbians.

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management

Golinski is a case that morphed into a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA after a complicated procedural history. It resulted in a district court decision by Judge Jeffrey White striking down Section 3 as unconstitutional. The decision is notable as the first one to strike down Section 3 using heightened scrutiny. After the district court decision, the Justice Department asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an initial en banc hearing. That typically means a hearing before the full panel of circuit judges, but the Ninth Circuit is so big that they assemble a panel of 11 judges in an "en banc panel." (There is also a "super en banc" with all the judges but I don't think that has ever been used. The Justice Department likely asked for this because the three-judge panel can't overturn circuit precedent, but the en banc panel can, and circuit precedent at the Ninth has held that laws affecting gays and lesbians have to be reviewed under rational basis scrutiny because gays and lesbians can't be a suspect class. The precedent, High Tech Gays, relied on the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick which upheld a law criminalizing same-sex intimacy as constitutional. High Tech Gays said that laws affecting gays and lesbians can't be "suspect" because the conduct that defines gays and lesbians can be criminalized. However in 2003, Bowers was overruled in Lawrence v. Texas, and usually when the foundation for a precedent is undermined in that way, the precedent is no longer valid. If initial en banc review were granted, the Ninth Circuit could hold that High Tech Gays is overruled. However, the Ninth Circuit denied initial en banc review, and only agreed to expedite their review with the three-judge panel. Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit were set for September 10.

Then, as noted above, the Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in both Gill and Golinski. The petition in Gill is fairly standard since that case was decided by the appeals court and ready for review. But the petition for certiorari before judgment (at the appeals court) in Golinski, while used less often, is not exceedingly rare. The Court will occasionally grant review before the appeals court renders a judgment in cases of national importance. As I wrote at the time discussing the DOJ's petition, after a discussion with Lambda Legal's (representing Karen Golinski) legal director Jon Davidson:

The appeals court denied initial en banc review, but granted the request for the expedited schedule and set oral argument for the week of September 10. From there, briefs were filed on both sides, with amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who is defending the law on behalf of House Republicans due by June 11. Amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs (same-sex couples) are due by July 10.

Then, unexpectedly last night, the Justice Department sent a letter to the Ninth Circuit informing them that it was seeking a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, bypassing review of the law by the appeals court. Attached to the letter was the petition for certiorari itself. The most significant thing about this move is that while sometimes the Supreme Court is asked to review a case before an appeals court judgment is entered (called “certiorari before judgment” or “cert before judgment”) it is rarely granted, and only in instances where the issue to be resolved in the case is considered highly important. For example, cert before judgment was granted in US v. Nixon, the case involving the papers and tapes of President Richard Nixon. It was granted as well in Ex parte Quirin, a national security case involving military commissions. Certiorari before judgment was granted as late as 2005, in United States v. Booker. It is seen as a highly unusual move, though arguably a federal law that immediately impacts hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples in several different court circuits could potentially qualify as of national importance. As Jon Davidson, Lambda Legal‘s national legal director (and one of the counsel for Golinski tells me, “Federal statutory provisions expressly allow any party to a case pending before a court of appeals to ask the Supreme Court to grant review before oral argument or decision by the intermediate appellate court.”

Normally, oral argument at the Ninth Circuit would have been held even with the pending cert petition (especially here, where oral argument was expected to be held on September 10 but the Supreme Court would not even have a conference until September 24) but in this case, the Ninth Circuit canceled its scheduled oral argument and held the case until the Supreme Court decides whether to take it. Then, Lambda Legal filed its reply brief, agreeing that the Court should hear the case. Since both the DOJ and Lambda Legal want the Court to take the case, all eyes were on BLAG to see how they would respond to the DOJ petition. BLAG then asked the Supreme Court for a short delay so it can have more time to file a reply. (This is fairly common and delays are routinely granted.) Once BLAG files its reply, the Court will be able to decide whether to hear the case.

Two notes about Golinski: Justice Kagan did not participate in the case at any stage, so she would be able to take part in reviewing the challenge; also, since Judge White applied heightened scrutiny to strike down Section 3, if the Court takes Golinski they would be faced with reviewing an opinion that puts another option before them in terms of the level of scrutiny.

Windsor v. USA

Edith Windsor is an 83 year old widow living in New York. She married her partner of over 40 years in 2007 in Canada, and then her partner passed away in 2009 from multiple sclerosis. Since Windsor married a woman and not a man, when her wife died after a long illness, she was left with a $363,000 tax bill because of DOMA, essentially a tax for being a legally married lesbian. The ACLU and NYCLU filed a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA with Windsor as their client.

Of note in this case, BLAG filed a brief suggesting that Edith Windsor's sexual orientation is a "choice." Windsor filed an affidavit combating that suggestion.

On June 6, the district court struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional under equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment. This court struck down the law using standard rational basis review. Judge Barbara Jones wrote that she did not need to address the level of scrutiny, because the case simply “may be disposed of under a rational basis review.” Two days later, BLAG appealed the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department filed its appeal as well. (The Justice Department and BLAG are fighting over the right to appeal in several DOMA challenges: the DOJ says BLAG doesn't have standing to appeal, and BLAG says the DOJ's appeals are "superfluous" because BLAG's appeal is all that is required.) BLAGmoved to dismiss DOJ's appeal.

Then Windsor broke with the current trajectory of these cases and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court herself, before judgment or even oral argument at the Second Circuit, and before the Justice Department filed any petition. She asked the Court to review her case, and at the same time suggested that her case would present the Court with an opportunity to strike down Section 3 of DOMA simply using rational basis review. The Justice Department and some LGBT organizations have been pushing hard for the Court to apply heightened scrutiny, so this is somewhat of a different legal strategy the ACLU and NYCLU are taking. BLAG asked for and received an extension of time to file a reply to Windsor's petition. Once the Court holds its conference they will decide which of these DOMA challenges, if any, they will take up.

While Windsor awaits possible Supreme Court review, it's still on appeal to the Second Circuit, and oral arguments will be held on September 27 in New York.

Perry v. Brown (or, Hollingsworth v. Perry) the Prop 8 case

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case en banc on June 5 after it struck down Proposition 8 and that set the case up for review by the Supreme Court. When en banc review was denied, the proponents of Proposition 8 said they would be filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, and on July 31, they did. The Olson/Boies team fighting Prop 8 in court have said they will oppose Supreme Court review of the case, since their clients won at the Ninth Circuit. A reply to the petition is expected from them soon, and since they've already said it will be in opposition to review, we know what to expect from them. We don't yet know whether the Supreme Court will review the case (and we are not likely to find out until October.) Proposition 8 isn't a federal law that was struck down, and the case was resolved on exceedingly narrow grounds specific to the state of California and maybe to one or two other states. It is of course possible that four Justices will want to review a decision striking down an amendment to California's state constitution on narrow grounds, but we can't know until after their conference.

There are more filings expected in nearly all of these pending cases. I'll be covering each one as they're announced, and when the Supreme Court decides which cases to review, we'll have it at Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

The next post in this series will focus on DOMA and marriage equality challenges in the district and appeals courts.

Originally posted to Scottie Thomaston, formerly indiemcemopants on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 10:56 AM PDT.

Also republished by Milk Men And Women, LGBT Kos Community, Invisible People, and Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Any sense of whether the cases will be bundled? (5+ / 0-)

    I can't imagine they wouldn't?

    •  No idea. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ExStr8, Avilyn, Steveningen, cooper888

      There are 3 cases, 5 petitions. So no one's really sure how it will play out. For one thing, whether they'll grant cert before judgment in the first place is a question. (If not, then only Gill/Mass would be reviewed.)

      I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
      @indiemcemopants on Twitter

      by Scottie Thomaston on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:14:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I imagine, if accepted, they would (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scottie Thomaston, cooper888

      likely be bundled.  No sense in hearing the same case three times.  Maybe a bit of an expanded argument to deal with the scrutiny point as well as whether the law survives rational basis.

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:46:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do wonder if (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AUBoy2007, cooper888

        some of the standing issues might need to be decided separately? Though I don't know. But I know in Windsor there are some issues with her standing that have been raised (I think having to do with her marriage in Canada.)

        Otherwise yeah it's all the same issue: whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:49:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that may be cause for expanding (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scottie Thomaston, cooper888

          argument time (or even dealing with standing at a separate time), but I just can't see three separate arguments all based on the constitutionality of Section 3.

          One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

          by AUBoy2007 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:56:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I should add that I initially believed that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Scottie Thomaston, cooper888

            they would just hear Gill and not the others (mooting the separate argument discussion), but if Kagan indicates to the others that she's going to recuse herself, I am not sure anymore.  I don't know that Kennedy (if he really is on our side) will want to waste time on something that would do nothing more that preserve the status quo (status quo being no DOMA in the 1st Circuit).

            One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

            by AUBoy2007 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:58:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah the recusal issue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cooper888

              really does turn things around. I missed that discussion somehow back during Kagan's confirmation hearings, but Professor Nan Hunter quoted it from the source.

              I do think you're right it'd be totally pointless to review the one case only to reach a 4-4 decision that's pretty much meaningless. And it's hard to see them being willing to make a decision that essentially makes a federal law inoperable only in one circuit. There aren't a lot of circuits where DOMA matters at this point, but still, that does not seem to be a viable option.

              I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
              @indiemcemopants on Twitter

              by Scottie Thomaston on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:03:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That could depend on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scottie Thomaston

        how they are presented and briefed.

        If each is presented as a different issue, there is no real reason to bundle them.

        For me, one of the big issues on Prop 8 is what arguments, if any, will be presented.  The P8 supporters had no real issues to argue when they appealed it the first time - how will they handle that in front of the Supremes?

        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

        by trumpeter on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 01:35:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Really excellent post, Scottie. (5+ / 0-)

    Thanks for all the hard work and info.

    Stonewall was a RIOT!

    by ExStr8 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 11:15:57 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for your hard work (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scottie Thomaston, ExStr8

    in assembling this information for all of us.

  •  With respect to Windsor and Golinski (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scottie Thomaston

    and assuming I understand DOJ's argument correctly (I posed that question at P8TT), DOJ's argument runs as follows:

    BLAG has argued that DOJ doesn't have standing to appeal these cases because they agree with the court's ruling. In opposition to BLAG, DOJ argues that it has standing to appeal (in both cases) because the finding in both cases was against the executive branch in its capacity as enforcer of the law and that finding, in and of itself, give DOJ standing to appeal even though it agrees with the court ruling. If the court were to decide that DOJ did NOT have standing, then BLAG would also not have standing to pursue the case because there would, in effect, be nothing to appeal (that is, in court parlance, there would be no "live controversy").

  •  BLAG, BLAG, BLAH (3+ / 0-)

    Just how "Bipartisan" is the "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group"?  

    I'm so glad you asked!

    From the wiki entry:

    The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) has been a standing body of the U.S. House of Representatives since 1993. Comprising five members of the House leadership (the Speaker, the majority and minority leaders, the majority and minority whips), it directs the activities of the House Office of General Counsel. BLAG can direct the General Counsel to file an amicus curiae brief in cases involving the interests of the House or can call for legislation or a House resolution authorizing the General Counsel to represent the House itself.
    In 2011, when President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), House Speaker John Boehner convened BLAG to authorize the House Office of General Counsel or other outside attorneys to take the place of the DOJ in defending the law.[10] On March 9, 2011, BLAG by a vote of 3–2 directed the Office of General Counsel to defend DOMA
    If we retake the House in 2012, I would assume BLAG would reconvene and immediately ask their council to drop their appeals.

    PS: GREAT GREAT writeup!  You need a spreadsheet indeed!

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:16:51 PM PDT

    •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      And I'm not sure about dropping their appeals. They could certainly reconvene and do that but it's a bit complicated. The Court will likely know by early October, even before the election, if it will hear a DOMA case. If they do, oral argument will be sometime around February, which means briefing will be completed by then, maybe even finished or almost-entirely-finished by mid-January.

      So it becomes a question of whether we want to have this all just finished already or if we want them to stop it and let it play out over a longer period of time.

      There's also a question of what would happen if (god forbid) Romney wins the presidency. Would he ask the DOJ to change its mind and offer a vigorous defense of the law?

      I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
      @indiemcemopants on Twitter

      by Scottie Thomaston on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:21:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  good questions all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave in Northridge, trumpeter

        But in short..
        YES, I assume Romney WOULD required the DOJ to re-file their brief for opposing council, and demand they offer a vigorous defense of the law.  In particular, I assume he would swap all lawyers on the case for new ones more in line with his thinking.

        Didn't this happen with Prop 8?  Didn't what's-her-name promise that if she were elected governor that she would defend prop 8 in the courts?

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 12:39:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Great post, great new series! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scottie Thomaston

    You can publish directly from Kossacks for Marriage Equality if you want, and this is a really good addition to the files.

    I can't wait to hear about cert, and I'm hoping they decide NOT to hear Prop 8. Off to republish this to a few more groups.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 01:10:27 PM PDT

  •  Technicality in Golinsky (0+ / 0-)

    If the Ninth Circuit were to decide Golinsky (i.e. the SCOTUS decided not to fast-track it), it would be deciding a case where the apellee was one of its own employees (Ms. Golinsky is a member of the Ninth Circuit's staff). How would the recusal/COI rules work in that circumstance?

    If you integrate fantasy with reality, you do not instantiate reality. If you mix cow pie with apple pie, it does not make the cow pie taste better; it makes the apple pie worse. --Mark Crislip

    by ebohlman on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 02:58:22 AM PDT

    •  Well Kozinski (0+ / 0-)

      recused from the en banc vote, but I'm not sure who else might need to recuse.

      I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
      @indiemcemopants on Twitter

      by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:10:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site