Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sets oral arguments in Indiana and Wisconsin same-sex marriage cases for August 13

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has set oral arguments in challenges to same-sex marriage bans from Wisconsin and Indiana for August 13.

Last week, the appeals court consolidated the two cases, putting them on the same briefing schedule, and allowing them to be heard by the same three-judge panel.

The arguments will take place in Chicago, Illinois, a week after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears five cases from the four states within its jurisdiction.

The appeals court still hasn’t acted on the state of Indiana’s request to have its case heard by all Seventh Circuit judges.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

63 Comments

  • 1. SWB1987  |  July 14, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    So basically every circuit court is fast tracking this except the fifth…

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  July 14, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    Seems that way.

  • 3. Margo Schulter  |  July 14, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Scottie, Judge Posner in the Seventh Circuit may be very interesting to watch if he’s on a panel in these cases, because I get the impression that his approach may be pragmatic.

    He’s expressed the view that since Lesbian/Gay orientation seems to be a natural phenomenon unconnected with “antisocial” effects, the only objections to marriage equality are evidently of a religious nature, and not valid reasons for marriage bans under our Constitution.

    It’s humorous that Judge Posner, as a very prominent critique of the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia, pretty much reaches the same conclusion as Scalia in his >Lawrence dissent: What reason other than moral disapproval remains for marriage bans?

  • 4. hopalongcassidy  |  July 14, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    The Tenth is trying for a field goal, they ruled on Utah 19 days ago but nothing on Oklahoma which was heard one week later yet still languishing in their washroom, waiting for….Jesus?

  • 5. debater7474  |  July 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm

    That's great news for us. No matter how right wing you go, the fifth circuit will always be standing to the right of you saying, "Let me know when you wanna get real." http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/06/34343

  • 6. Zack12  |  July 14, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    That used to be the case with the 4th circuit but since Obama has been able to put six appointees on there that has changed things.
    It now a moderate to liberal leaning court.

  • 7. Ragavendran  |  July 14, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    Meanwhile in Oklahoma: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/student-expell

  • 8. Lee  |  July 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    Margo – Posner, a Clinton appointee, and an Obama appointee are the three judges assigned to this case. Probably the best panel for the couples and worst for the States.

    No secret why Indiana wants a hearing in front of full court immediately.

  • 9. remc_in_chicago  |  July 14, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    I am excited about this. I plan to take the day off so I can be there to witness one of these hearings for myself. Will worry about what time I need to show up later…

  • 10. Margo Schulter  |  July 14, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    Lee, thanks for the great news on Judge Posner as a member of the panel!

  • 11. Dann3377  |  July 14, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would want to attend a school like that? Sounds like the school can expel you for any reason the see fit. I still feel bad that she has to transfer and finish her degree at another school.

  • 12. Ragavendran  |  July 14, 2014 at 9:47 pm

    Court Transcript of July 2 hearing on summary judgment in Florida's Pareto case: http://www.scribd.com/doc/233906033/2014-1661-CA-

  • 13. RnL2008  |  July 14, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    It appears to be a busy summer and hopefully history will remain on our side!!!

  • 14. RnL2008  |  July 14, 2014 at 10:27 pm

    It might have been the only school with the program she needed to get her degree……though I would have truly looked at ALL of my options before signing something that I knew I COULDN'T comply with!!

    If a school accepts federal funding, I believe it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have students sign that type of agreement!!!

  • 15. SeattleRobin  |  July 15, 2014 at 12:26 am

    Thanks for posting the link. Based on the transcript, the judge seems to be heavily favoring the plaintiffs.

    The state's only argument was that Baker precludes the court from making a summary judgment. Though near the end one of the amicus lawyers offered a possible explanation, saying the state had only intervened a week ago. Evidently up until now the only defendant was a clerk, who has taken a neutral position the whole time.

    The amicus lawyer rambled on and on, and had the audacity to present the Regnerus study as authoritative. (Thankfully the attorney for our side pointed out the study had been rejected in the Michigan trial and had not been presented by either party in this case so was not properly before the court.)

    Unless the judge was persuaded that Baker controls, the case can only go our way.

  • 16. Ragavendran  |  July 15, 2014 at 6:32 am

    I bet the judge dozed off during most of the pointless rant of the amicus lawyer and woke up in the end to thank him. He didn't deserve a rebuttal, but our side did provide one at the end. I love that our lawyer said in the beginning, even before the amicus lawyer started, "Your Honor, when this gentleman is finished, would you give me one minute?"

  • 17. RCChicago  |  July 15, 2014 at 6:43 am

    I was particularly struck by how well-versed the Judge appeared to be with the previous rulings. I agree about the resolution—it's hard to read her comments and not believe she will vote in our favor. Impatient for her ruling to be released…It's interesting that Staver, when asked about all of the cases that have ruled in our favor in regards to Baker, sidesteps the questions and responds by jumping back to 2003 and 2005 to justify his position. Also, his highly edited read of the Windsor ruling. Surprised the judge didn't slap him. He even desperately questions whether the plaintiffs are Florida residents. Good grief.

  • 18. daveinasheville  |  July 15, 2014 at 7:14 am

    Could the state, as a delaying tactic at least, appeal a ruling against it on the grounds that its own counsel was ineffective? I know precious little about legal matters but it seems like the delayers have tried everything else…

  • 19. Marriage Equality Round-U&hellip  |  July 15, 2014 at 7:15 am

    […] USA, Indiana / Wisconsin: Arguments in the IN and WI marriage equality lawsuits will take place at the Seventh Circuit in Chicago on 8/13. full story […]

  • 20. SWB1987  |  July 15, 2014 at 7:17 am

    I like how the student code says they can penalize you for discrimination yet they are allowed to discriminate against gays. I also don't understand how all of these schools are "ok" with gay relationships until they get married. What difference does it make at that point?

  • 21. brandall  |  July 15, 2014 at 7:49 am

    CO: Suthers in Federal Court Today

    This is now a full-time job for the AG. Appeal to the CO Supreme Court was filed yesterday afternoon. Score reminder: AG – 0, Clerk Hall – 2
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/07/15/federal-jud

  • 22. StraightDave  |  July 15, 2014 at 7:54 am

    They just can't stand the legitimacy that final step conveys. They know they can't stop LGBT existence or visibility anymore, so they'll settle for mucking up your lives. No more, no less. 5 years ago I wouldn't have been this cynical, but after watching all the hate and obstruction openly manifest itself as a result of simply demanding equality, I now am that cynical. I no longer just hope they all lose, I hope they get their noses rubbed in it.

  • 23. Mike_Baltimore  |  July 15, 2014 at 10:17 am

    For decades now, we've heard the Xto-Fascists scream "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

    Has anyone run into any of those Xto-Fascists who actually followed their own mantra? I haven't.

  • 24. SeattleRobin  |  July 15, 2014 at 10:26 am

    I don't think that would get very far. One of the lawyers was for a group that only requested amicus status right before the hearing. He was making all kinds of noise about what hadn't been done in the case and how little time the state defense had to prepare. The judge responded by saying the complaint was filed in January and the hearing had been on the schedule for a long time. She didn't say it, but the implication was clear from that that if anyone cared that much about it they should have gotten involved sooner and they would have had plenty of time.

  • 25. BenjiCA  |  July 15, 2014 at 11:57 am

    I just about fell off my chair when the amicus lawyer presented Regnerus (page 59). Didn't he follow the Michigan case at all? And by bringing Regnerus into the picture, it throws a huge doubt on all their other arguments.

    And all those arguments the state used using Baker. Sigh. Isn't it getting old. Opponents keep trotting it out, probably hoping that some judge will fall for it despite all the recent decisions ignoring it or countering it.

    I love the phrase "tyranny of the majority" (page 39). I wonder if we'll see more of this phrase in the future.

  • 26. Zack12  |  July 15, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    I saw this hearing live and I can tell you the judge wasn't buying what the anti-side was trying to sell.
    And by the tone of her voice, she was NOT impressed with the request for more time.
    She is on our side, the only question is when a ruling will be handed down.

  • 27. Margo Schulter  |  July 15, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    daveinasheville (with my browser, I can’t respond to a specific comment), as a layperson I’ve understood that ineffective assistance counsel applies under the Sixth Amendment granting the right of counsel to criminal defendants — as opposed to civil litigants, and more especially the state or government as a party to such litigation.

  • 28. Margo Schulter  |  July 15, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    To paraphrase Samuel Johnson on patriotism, Baker v. Nelson seems to be the last refuge of a marriage ban defender without any rational justification to offer for the challenged discriminatory legislation — let alone the “exceedingly persuasive” justification required under intermediate scrutiny.

  • 29. RnL2008  |  July 15, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    The problem that I am having ONLY appears on the Strong Victories in Colorado thread……all others are working fine and I have reported the problem to the techs!!!

  • 30. BenG1980  |  July 15, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    I'm having the same problem only on that thread.

  • 31. brandall  |  July 15, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    Ben – did you reply to a comment below our "special guest" today? I don't remember which threads were deleted in the late afternoon.

  • 32. RnL2008  |  July 15, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    Hi Ben,
    I can read other's comments, but just can't reply to ANY on that thread now……oh well……reading is okay and I can move to a different thread!!!

  • 33. BenG1980  |  July 15, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    Not directly, but I did reply to one of Rose's replies.

  • 34. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 6:39 am

    Hello Bay Area Folks: I've booked my flight to San Francisco to attend the Ninth Circuit oral arguments in September. I hope I'm not being too forward here – can I stay for that Saturday and Sunday nights (Monday being the day of oral arguments) with any of you that's planning to attend as well? I thought I'd ask before I book a hotel. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (You can find my contact info on my website http://ecee.colorado.edu/ragad3/ if you'd prefer to communicate privately regarding this – thank you.)

  • 35. brandall  |  July 16, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Any comments directly below the special guest yesterday are subject to this bug. I looked all IntenseDebate this morning and cannot find this issue reported. There are multiple ways to stop a special guest in their tracks and depending on which method the admins are using, this bug shows up. You should be back to normal as soon as a new article (and subsequent comments blog) is created.

  • 36. BenG1980  |  July 16, 2014 at 9:41 am

    Thank you for investigating. So far this seems like a really slow news day anyway, but, as always, I'm hoping that will change at 2:30 EDT when the Fourth Circuit releases today's opinions.

  • 37. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 9:42 am

    Hopefully… Fingers crossed. Nothing from the Tenth today :(

  • 38. brandall  |  July 16, 2014 at 9:52 am

    For personal reasons I have expressed earlier, I want the Miami-Dade ruling today. What goes around, comes around (albeit 37 years later).

  • 39. scream4ever  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:05 am

    What's coming out of the 10th?

  • 40. BenG1980  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:07 am

    A decision in the Bishop case out of Oklahoma.

  • 41. brandall  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:17 am

    10th just updated for the day. No written decisions.

  • 42. RnL2008  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Any idea on when we MIGHT see that ruling or the ruling from the 4th?

  • 43. RnL2008  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:27 am

    I'd offer you a place to stay, but I live 2 1/2 hours north of the City…….nice area, but not if you need to be closer……….thank you for all you do though and I look forward to reading your comments.

  • 44. brandall  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:29 am

    It's somewhat overdue at this point. So, anytime.

  • 45. RnL2008  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:31 am

    I look forward to reading it……thanks brandall for all you do on this site!!!

  • 46. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:33 am

    No worries, Rose. Thanks for replying. Hopefully a group of us can still get together Saturday/Sunday night for dinner or something, with the EoT team if possible :)

  • 47. davepCA  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Hi Raga, watch for my email to your .edu account.

  • 48. OctaA  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Does anyone know if/ when the Texas brief at the 5th circuit has been/will be posted? I believe it is due today along with the extra briefing in the Louisiana case.

  • 49. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 10:57 am

    On July 3, Appellants Abbot/Perry obtained a phone extension to file their brief until today. Yesterday, they filed another motion for an extension of time to file until July 28. Today, the plaintiffs have filed a strongly worded response in opposition to this motion, noting:

    Appellees oppose Appellants motion for an extension of time through July 28, but would not oppose a brief extension through this Friday, July 18, in order for Appellants to finalize their brief, which by now has surely been written. The Solicitor General’s vague claim of being too busy to prioritize this appeal simply does not justify further delaying this dispute. Appellees are suffering irreparable harm due to the violation of their constitutional rights, and that harm should not be extended merely because nearly five months have proven an insufficient amount of time for the Solicitor General to prepare Appellants’ opening brief.

    It remains to be seen if the Fifth Circuit will grant this second, last-minute extension request. I would be surprised if they don't.

  • 50. brandall  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Subject to the changing scenario above:

    Petitioner’s opening brief is due 7/16/14, Appellees’ brief is due 30 days thereafter (8/15/14 if filed on due date, with amicus briefs due one week thereafter) and reply brief is due 14 days after filing of Appellees’ brief (8/29/14 if filed on due date).
    http://www.lambdalegal.org/node/29356

  • 51. brandall  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:16 am

    Confirming LA due date.

    On 6/25/14 during argument the judge announced that he wants to decide on both freedom to marry and recognition, not just recognition. New briefing is due 7/16/14 from both sides.
    https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/same-sex-marriag

  • 52. RnL2008  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:25 am

    We'll talk between now and then…..look forward to your time here and your comments!!!

  • 53. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:26 am

    To add to the LA update above, a motions hearing has been set for August 13 at 10am. And the CO federal court hearing in Burns is on July 22 at 1:30pm at which time the motion to stay will be argued.

  • 54. RCChicago  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:34 am

    Wow. LA motions hearing is the same day as the appeals hearing in Chicago for WI and IN.

  • 55. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:34 am

    No Bostic today either. But I sense we are so close. The argument leading to today's published opinion was held on May 13.

  • 56. Bruno71  |  July 16, 2014 at 11:42 am

    I'm taking the "watched pot never boils" approach. The moment you look away, it'll come.

  • 57. Ragavendran  |  July 16, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Ha. The Fifth Circuit granted the motion for extension – piece of cake for them. Appellant brief is now due 7/28. The plaintiffs' opposition, as expected, fell on deaf ears.

  • 58. brandall  |  July 17, 2014 at 7:35 am

    LA supplemental briefs were filed by both parties on time.
    http://theadvocate.com/home/9742509-125/both-side

  • 59. MichaelGrabow  |  July 17, 2014 at 7:57 am

    The 8/13 date for these arguments has been cancelled for undisclosed reasons.

  • 60. Ragavendran  |  July 21, 2014 at 6:03 am

    The animus bump? http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/18/the

    (I'm starting to use this post as it has less than 100 comments)

  • 61. Marcus  |  July 28, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    Last week experience was the happiest moment of my life,i and my wife were separated for close to 3 years and ever since she left me i have always find things difficult for my self,taking care of the kids and especially my business which was going down gradually because of lack of concentration.I have always thought of getting her back but she refused because really i caused her disappearance i cheated on her often and when she could not take it she took for a divorce and after which i brought one of my girlfriend in looking forward to get married to her but not less than few weeks i noticed her ugly character and definitely such can not make a good wife i had to stay unmarried because i realized that after my wife left i could not find any woman as committed and humble as she wife was.
    To cut my story short i have gone wide in search for a powerful spell caster and i was informed by some of my friends that i should contact Priest Ajigar that he is very powerful and he can solve my problem i took his email from my him,i search his email and name on Google that same day to my surprise i saw so many persons testimonies saying that Priest Ajigar helped them to bring back their ex and also restored their broken marriages i contacted Priest Ajigar and he told me all i need to know and he ask me to give him 4 days that my wife is going to call me on phone i thought it was a joke and to my greatest surprise she really did call me, we kept on talking for like two weeks after which she came back home and said she is giving me the last chance that if she should stay with me as his wife again i should promise not to cheat on her again.I am so happy today to let the whole world know that Priest Ajigar is spell works and to all who are in search of help should contact his email:(priestajigarspells@live.com)

  • 62. Equality On TrialSeventh &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:27 am

    […] appeals court had initially set oral arguments for August 13, but that order was subsequently […]

  • 63. Equality On TrialSeventh &hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:29 am

    […] cases challenging Indiana and Wisconsin’s marriage equality bans, just a few days after it set those arguments for August […]

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