This week we have news from Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. We also had a hearing for the marriage equality cases in the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday.
In Pennsylvania, the clerk who wants to intervene in that marriage equality case had requested a rehearing en banc with the Third Circuit. That request was denied. Will she also appeal to SCOTUS? We'll see. She is out of appeals with regard to the stay.
In Arkansas, the plaintiffs in that marriage equality case have requested that state Supreme Court justices that are up for re-election recuse themselves from the case. In addition, the state defendants have requested that the state Supreme Court stay the proceedings in this case till the SCOTUS rules on one of the marriage equality cases before it.
In Utah, the state defendants petitioned the SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari in the marriage equality case in that state. See sfbob's excellent diary on that development here. And, the defendants in Oklahoma filed a request as well with SCOTUS. Virginia's AG has also appealed the marriage equality case from that state to the SCOTUS. So, the SCOTUS will definitely have an opportunity to rule on marriage equality next term/session.
In
Florida, a fourth state judge (from Palm Beach County) has ruled that that state's ban on marriages of same-sex couples is unconstitutional. However, the order only applies to the named plaintiffs. And, AG Pam Bondi has asked the state's Appeals Court for the Third District to stay the proceedings in the marriage equality cases pending resolution of the issue by the SCOTUS.
In Ohio, a district court judge has stayed the remaining marriage equality case in that state that expands marriage rights for all same-sex couples in Ohio pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit.
In the
Sixth Circuit, a panel held oral arguments in six marriage equality cases out of the four states in that circuit. It appears that the ruling will hinge on one of the judges -- Judge Jeffrey Sutton. He seemed quite concerned about Baker v Nelson precedent. He also seemed to think that marriage equality advocates should focus on gaining marriage equality rights through the democratic process (legislatures or public votes) rather than the courts. However, he also made comments that seemed to favor the marriage equality proponents. So, he is a bit of a wild card.