Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

DOMA: Ninth Circuit oral argument in Golinski v. OPM canceled pending Supreme Court action

DOMA trials Golinski

By Scottie Thomaston

Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was scheduled for September 10. The Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, to review the case, and the Court won’t decide whether to take the case until September 24 or later. Now the Ninth Circuit has canceled oral argument in the case pending the Supreme Court conference and subsequent decision to hear the case or not.

The filing says:

The oral argument scheduled for September 10, 2012, is VACATED. The Court directs that this case be held in abeyance pending resolution of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment pending before the United States Supreme Court in Office of Personnel Management, et al., v. Golinski, No. 12-16 and, if certiorari is granted in this case, pending determination of the case on the merits.

Here’s the document via Kathleen:12-15409 #140

28 Comments

  • 1. Dana Jeanne Norris  |  July 27, 2012 at 11:30 am

    So is this a good thing or a bad thing? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to courts and laws, etc.

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  July 27, 2012 at 11:36 am

    They're just waiting for the Supreme Court to decide if it will take the case. Not really good or bad I guess. We'll see what happens after the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take it.

  • 3. Reformed  |  July 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    if the supreme court decides to hear it, does that mean it goes to the supremen court and skips the 9th circuit?

  • 4. atwookie - C. Atwood  |  July 27, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    I believe it means the Supreme Court will make a decision about its interpretation, and then the 9th Circuit will have precedent to follow in order to make their decision.

  • 5. devon  |  July 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Assuming a Romney victory in november, I would think that the DOJ would be ordered to defend DOMA once again the day of his swearing in. Romney had pledged to defend DOMA repeatedly.
    This I fear will cause all DOMA challenges to be placed on indefinite hold to allow the DOJ to develop new briefings to conform to the republican party's anti gay position.
    So much for a DOMA decision next year or anytime soon.

  • 6. Sagesse  |  July 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    @

  • 7. Stefan  |  July 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Given the electoral college numbers, it's not at all safe to assume a Romney victory in November. Far from it actually.

  • 8. Kathleen  |  July 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    If the Supreme Court grants cert in Golinski (i.e., takes the case), the Supreme Court decision on the merits is the only one that will matter. There would then be no reason for the 9th Circuit to issue an opinion.

  • 9. davep  |  July 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    For this reason and a hundred other reasons, we need to do everything we can to make sure Romney doesn't get elected. It would be worse than Bush Jr.

  • 10. SoCal_Dave  |  July 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Sorry for the repetition if this has been explained elsewhere, but I haven't found it…
    What's the deal with trying to skip over 9th Circuit and going straight to SCOTUS?
    Does there have to be some kind of special circumstance for this? If so, what is it? And if not, why don't we see this more often? (or do we, and I'm just not paying attention?)

  • 11. Reformed  |  July 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    I have been wondering the same thing. I thought the supreme court handled appeals that had worked through the lower courts. Not understanding why you would ask a higher court if they will take it. Is it because there are so many similar cases that so many piling up in our favor that additional ones are wasteful and prejudicial because of the number of lower court favorable rulings. I seriously don't think that is it, but no, you are definitely the only one wondering.

  • 12. Reformed  |  July 27, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    Not the only one I mean.

  • 13. Bill S.  |  July 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    No, the Supreme Court will first be deciding only whether or not to take the case (and possibly consolidate it with Gill v. OPM). This is not a ruling on the merits. Should the Supreme Court not take the case, the 9th Circuit will schedule oral arguments and the case will proceed as it normally would.

  • 14. Mark B.  |  July 28, 2012 at 11:20 am

    <img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/ikea/ics.jpg"/>It's hard to say if this is good or bad, just an update i guess. <img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/xbox/vzi.jpg"/&gt;

  • 15. mtnbill  |  July 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    While the direct appeal is not common, it is not unusual. In earlier posts on the Windsor case, and Gil et al., there have been discussions of the reasons for the direct appeal. In the appeal for the writ, the parties have cited several cases where the SC has taken action, before the appeals process has run its course. One reason for the direct appeal by Windsor is her age. Another is that different appeal courts have used different standards for discrimination already in their decisions. Yet a third is the possibility that the Gil case will apply only in New England, and not in the rest of the country which makes administration of the various laws very difficult.

  • 16. SoCal_Dave  |  July 28, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Thanks, Mtnbill !

  • 17. What the Fuck is Going on&hellip  |  July 28, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    […] Via Prop 8 Trial Tracker: Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was scheduled for September 10. The Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, to review the case, and the Court won’t decide whether to take the case until September 24 or later. Now the Ninth Circuit has canceled oral argument in the case pending the Supreme Court conference and subsequent decision to hear the case or not. […]

  • 18. Mike in Baltimore  |  July 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    The question was "if the supreme court decides to hear it,"

    Thus if SCOTUS decides to hear it, then it skips the Ninth, unless SCOTUS sends it back to the Ninth with instructions on when the Ninth hears the case again.

    However, if the Ninth won't hear the case if it goes to SCOTUS, it can't 'hear the case again', as it hasn't heard it the first time.

  • 19. Bob  |  July 29, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    absolutely, everything,,,,, possible,,,, come on America,,, you can do it,,,,,

  • 20. Mike in Baltimore  |  August 5, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Maybe you ASSume, but most people PREsume, basing their thought-process on little things called FACTS.

  • 21. Critical Mass Progress | &hellip  |  August 7, 2012 at 8:21 am

    […] 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 […]

  • 22. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    […] on July 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals canceled oral arguments in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, a constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act filed by Lambda Legal. The […]

  • 23. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    […] case on hold pending a Supreme Court decision on the Windsor petition; the Ninth Circuit recently vacated arguments in another DOMA case, Golinski v. OPM, that had been appealed directly to the Supreme […]

  • 24. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    […] argument at the Ninth Circuit in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management was canceled, due to the petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court asking for review of the district […]

  • 25. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    […] points out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated oral argument in another challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, because the […]

  • 26. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  December 18, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    […] and whether or not they will suspend it is unknown. Another appeals court, the Ninth Circuit, did halt oral argument in a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, Golinski v. OPM, after the Justice Department petitioned the […]

  • 27. sugar cougar dating  |  April 16, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    Saved as a favorite, I really like your website!

    Here is my web site – sugar cougar dating

  • 28. .22lr ammo for sale  |  April 17, 2014 at 9:36 pm

    Thanks a lot for sharing this with all folks you actually realize
    what you’re talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also discuss with my web site =).
    We could have a hyperlink alternate arrangement among us

    Alsso visit my page: .22lr ammo for sale

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!