Skip to main content

Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Proposition 8.  It’s a moment the legal civil rights community had avoided for years, fearing the risks involved – and choosing more incremental approaches, like challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (the Court will hear oral arguments on DOMA tomorrow.)  But once the Prop 8 trial went underway in January 2010, a sense of optimism grew that things would go our way.  And with four states voting to affirm marriage rights for same-sex couples last November, followed by a cascade of elected officials in recent weeks coming out in support, we all know that it’s only a matter of time.  For our conservative opponents, they have known since Day One of the Trial that their saving grace would be five Justices on the Supreme Court – which remains a possibility.  After the Court hears arguments today, they will deliberate and issue a decision in June.  The following are five possible ways they could rule …

Option 1: Deny Standing to Prop 8 Supporters

One reason why this case took so long to get to the U.S. Supreme Court (more than 4 years after Prop 8 passed, and more than 2 years after the Trial commenced) was that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals spent much of 2011 reviewing the question of standing.  Because California Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have refused to defend Prop 8, the question came down to whether its right-wing proponents had “standing” to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision.

A litigant must have suffered an “injury” to have standing, and Prop 8 proponents have failed to articulate why they – as private right-wing citizens, rather than the government – would be harmed by letting same-sex couples marry.  The Supreme Court could rule they don’t have standing, which would allow Judge Walker’s original decision to hold.  Prop 8 would be overturned and gay couples could marry, but the decision would have no effect beyond California – and there would be no legal precedent on the question of whether such anti-gay measures are unconstitutional.

But I don’t expect the Supreme Court to rule that way for several reasons.  First, the question was exhaustively litigated – the Ninth Circuit even punted it back to the California Supreme Court, who ruled that Prop 8 supporters had standing.  Because Prop 8 was a “citizen initiative,” it can be argued the drafters step into the shoes of elected officials – and “represent” the state for this limited purpose.

In a sign that it’s not likely to be found, the U.S. Supreme Court has set aside time for “standing” on DOMA oral arguments tomorrow – where the Obama Administration has likewise refused to defend an anti-gay law, and right-wing proponents have had to step in to “represent” the federal government.  But the Court has not done the same for Prop 8, which suggests that they want to go to the merits of the question.

Regardless of the outcome, Prop 8 will likely be decided on the merits.

Option 2: Uphold Prop 8, Reversing the Lower Courts

The Supreme Court could uphold Prop 8, depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry and forcing advocates in California to repeal it at the ballot box.  This is the outcome the civil rights community has dreaded for years – that filing a lawsuit in federal court was “too risky,” “too soon” and could set back the LGBT community.

Right-wing proponents of Prop 8 have counted on a 5-4 win at the Supreme Court all along.  Back in January 2010, on the first day of trial Brian Brown of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage wrote in an e-mail: “We do not expect to win at the trial level. But with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.”

But a lot has changed since 2010.  A solid majority of Americans now support the freedom to marry (especially in California), and last November three states – Maine, Maryland & Washington – voted to grant marriage for same-sex couples, and in Minnesota voters defeated an anti-gay amendment.  The latter is significant, because until then opponents could argue that “the people” had always voted on their side.

While the Supreme Court doesn’t want to be seen as “judicial activists,” they also don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.  And Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular, is leery of the Court’s right-wing image.  Some have even speculated this was why he voted to uphold Obamacare – so the Court’s conservative majority would have the political space to wreak havoc on more low-profile cases.  Throw liberals a victory on Prop 8, and it distracts the public from their other Supreme Court cases.

I predict the Court will repeal Prop 8, although my opinion may change after hearing today’s oral arguments.  Even so, there are three possible ways the Court could rule that would overrule Prop 8 – and grant marriage rights for California gay couples.

Option 3: Repeal Prop 8, But Only for California

The Court could uphold the Ninth Circuit decision – which repealed Prop 8 on narrow grounds.  Unlike other anti-gay marriage amendments passed in 32 other states, Prop 8 was unique because it affirmatively took away the right from same-sex couples – after they had it for six months.  There was no basis except “animus” – which the Court in Romer v. Evans (1996) concluded was not rational, after a Colorado initiative repealed all anti-gay nondiscrimination laws.

Justice Anthony Kennedy – the “swing” vote – wrote the Court opinion in Romer v. Evans, and the Ninth Circuit decision was clearly written with him in mind.  It would not force Kennedy to do anything besides repeat what he said in Romer, and would allow the Court to repeal Prop 8 – but in such a way that it could only apply to California.  It would not require them to answer the question of whether anti-gay discrimination requires a higher level of scrutiny, such as race or gender.

One year ago, a narrow Supreme Court opinion that only applies to California was the best we could hope for.  But the political landscape on this issue has changed dramatically, which suggests that the Court could go further.  Marriage equality supporters – from the Prop 8 plaintiffs to President Obama – will be arguing for a broader ruling, which could lead to one of the following two outcomes.

Option 4: Repeal Prop 8 via the Nine-State Solution

In its amicus brief supporting the Plaintiffs, the Obama Justice Department argued that Prop 8 should be repealed – because for a state to grant civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples violates equal protection.  In today’s oral arguments, Solicitor General Theodore Boutros will get time to argue this point.

If the Court overrules Prop 8 on these grounds, it will apply to California and eight other states – Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.  There is no compelling reason or rational basis to determine that gay couples should have all the legal benefits of a domestic partnership – but to then deny them marriage.  In five of these states – Delaware, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey & Hawaii – efforts are underway to pass a marriage bill in the legislature, and could pass later this year.  In Oregon, which passed a similar amendment to Prop 8 in 2004, advocates are collecting signature to repeal the ban in November 2014.  

Supreme Court Justices are leery of being “too far” ahead of the people.  Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said that – while Roe v. Wade was a right decision, politically it engendered a backlash and that perhaps the Court should have waited.  But a ruling on these grounds is not too ambitious.  After all, a majority of voters in these states generally support same-sex marriage – and in some cases, a legislative solution is imminent.  The Supreme Court would simply be doing the inevitable.

Option 5: Grant Marriage Equality to All 50 States

While the Justice Department will argue the more incremental “Nine-State Solution,” lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies will argue that the Supreme Court should grant marriage to same-sex couples as a Constitutional right.  Marriage is a fundamental right – and just like the Court in 1967 found it unconstitutional to deny marriage for interracial couples, the same can be said to gay couples today.  This would apply the same ruling that Trial Court Judge Vaughn Walker originally made for this case.

Such a ruling would have the same broad historic sweep that Roe v. Wade had for abortion rights, and Brown v. Board of Education did for the civil rights movement.  Which is why most observers (including myself) doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court, with its inherently conservative inclinations, would go that far.  We are on the right side of history, but the Court may fear a political backlash if a Prop 8 decision would apply to states like Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma or Mississippi.

But in last Sunday’s New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni made a compelling argument as to why such a ruling would not result in the kind of reaction we have seen with Roe and other such cases.  

“The abortion debate grinds on in part because to those who believe that life begins at conception and warrants full protection from then on, every pro-choice victory claims victims,” writes Bruni. “But the legalization of same-sex marriage takes nothing from anyone, other than the illusion – which is all it is and ever was – that healthy, nurturing relationships are reserved for people of opposite sexes.”

Which brings us back to the standing question.  Despite having strong political and religious feelings about the issue, how are opponents “harmed” by same-sex couples getting married – and having their relationship recognized by the law?  If the Court applied the best legal arguments, Prop 8 would be overruled on the standing issue alone.  But the Courts don’t always follow the best arguments – after all, the Justices are just well-connected lawyers with robes, who are influenced by political factors.

Which is why we can hope that the Supreme Court goes with Option #5 – and grants marriage equality to all 50 states.  But no one should really expect them to …

Stay Tuned Tomorrow, as Paul Hogarth analyzes the Prop 8 Oral Arguments – and offers a preview of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on DOMA.  On March 28th, the San Francisco LGBT Community Center will host a re-cap of the oral arguments with attorneys from the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m..

Paul Hogarth has a J.D. from Golden Gate University Law School, and is licensed to practice law in California.  He was a legal intern at Equality California in the summer of 2005, was active in Bloggers Against Prop 8, organized volunteers in 2009 who traveled to Maine for the marriage campaign, live-blogged the Prop 8 trial for the Courage Campaign in January 2010 and in 2012 worked as a Campaign Consultant for United for Marriage – a project that sent volunteers to Maine, Maryland, Minnesota & Washington to supplement campaign field efforts.  Follow him on Twitter at @paulhogarth.

Originally posted to Paul Hogarth on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 04:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Milk Men And Women 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

  •  I still think Standing is why they took both (4+ / 0-)

    Prop 8 and Windsor out of all the other DOMA cases but you lay out a compelling case otherwise.

    •  Standing could play a part in both cases but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, skrekk

      that part will differ. A rule against the proponents of Prop 8 could limit the scope of that ruling to be sure. Where standing comes into play in the DOMA case is quite different.

      It seems pretty clear that while BLAG should not be granted standing to appeal the rulings on DOMA, no such adverse finding applies to the Administration. The amicus attorney appointed by the court has rightly noted that there are multiple reasons why BLAG has not standing to appeal the lower court rulings. The Congress could demonstrate no particularized harms proceeding from a ruling against DOMA; if it were otherwise, either House would have some right to appeal whenever a federal law was overturned by the courts. In addition, it is clear that BLAG speaks mainly for the three members Republican members of Congress who constitute the majority there.

      Regarding standing with respect to DOJ, the amicus attorney has mischaracterized the case in the same way that BLAG has done, as constituting a conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches. However, as the Solicitor General has clearly noted, what is pertinent in the lower courts' rulings is not that DOJ (and thus the Executive Branch) agrees with the decision but that a law, which they are charged with enforcing, has been found unconstitutional and yet they are STILL bound to enforce it. Absent a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court, the federal government as a whole (represented here by the IRS) both MUST and CANNOT refund Edith Windsor's tax payment.

  •  Very nice writeup (4+ / 0-)

    I still hope that Kennedy (and maybe Roberts) want to be REMEMBERED.   Overturning Prop8 and DOMA would do that, in spades.

    And at some point, one has to pray the justices really, in their hearts, want to do the Right Thing.  As you say, there in no harm (though several would argue that lack of harm isn't required for a law to be constitutional).

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:55:16 AM PDT

    •  My bet? (0+ / 0-)

      I think the court will vote in favor of gay marraige.  In particular, I think both Olsen (arguing in favor of gay rights) and Roberts will take the postion that gay rights are constitutionally protected to preserve their place in history.

      Olsen would otherwise be remembered for winning Bush v Gore, and giving us 8 years of Bush.  By arguing the pro-gay case now, he hopes to salvage his legacy.  Likewise, Roberts voted for Obamacare to preserve his legacy, and is likely to want to be on the right side of history on this issue as well.

      Cynical view? yes.  but likely true.

      After all, they are all lawyers.  Why would we expect any one of them to actually care about ethics, morality or stuff like that?

      As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

      by BPARTR on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:35:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The difference between the two trials (0+ / 0-)

    You stated above...

    In a sign that it’s not likely to be found, the U.S. Supreme Court has set aside time for “standing” on DOMA oral arguments tomorrow – where the Obama Administration has likewise refused to defend an anti-gay law, and right-wing proponents have had to step in to “represent” the federal government.  But the Court has not done the same for Prop 8, which suggests that they want to go to the merits of the question.
    The reason that there is no separate time set aside for standing on the Prop 8 case is, with respect to the DOMA case, the Supreme Court appointed an attorney to present arguments as to why, alternatively, BLAG and the Department of Justice do not have standing in that case. Time has been set aside so that the court can hear the arguments that attorney, who is otherwise not a part of the case, has made. No such separate process has occurred in the Prop 8 case. So the lack of a separate time to discuss the standing issue on Prop 8 really doesn't mean very much; it is part and parcel of the case and will be discussed instead by the attorneys for the two sides.
  •  Very thorough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1

    I had convinced myself that the California-only solution based on Romer was the only thing we could expect from this court but you argue very convincingly for the nine-state solution and that's as far as I'll let myself go with this until I hear something about the Court session.

    -7.75, -8.10; . . . Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall (h/t cooper888)

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 07:26:36 AM PDT

  •  As regards a potential very broad ruling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites

    Two things come to mind:

    1. The best comparison is neither Brown vs Board of Education nor Roe vs Wade but Loving vs Virginia, since the latter case most closely resembles the current pair of cases.

    2. The more I think about it, the less reason I see to be concerned with backlash over a broad ruling. At the very least, while there would of course be backlash anyway, there is less of a basis for it. With respect to Roe, the backlash has consisted of arguments about the "rights" of the aborted fetus. Justice did the court no favors by making a comparison between the Prop 8 and DOMA cases on the one hand and Roe on the other; there is no "collateral damage" that could be used to fuel such a backlash. Brown makes a better comparison here since there was a good deal of resistance to the striking down of all laws supporting segregation. At the same time, the immediate reactions, while intense, were localized, while the remnants of segregation continued over the following decade and required further Congressional action in the form of multiple civil rights laws. The legal terrain is quite different now however since the entire apparatus of classification by "suspect class" did not exist when Brown was handed down. There will once again be less of a leg to stand on. Not that there wouldn't be protests of course; that's entirely possible if not likely, whether full marriage equality come to the US this June or over the next 25 years. But the lack of a demonstrable harm to a particular way of life again makes it tougher to account for any outrage and resistance on the part of various states.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site