Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

BREAKING: Supreme Court declines to halt Idaho same-sex marriages

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

It's time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
It’s time for marriage equality. Attribution: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
UPDATE 9:26ET: The plaintiffs have filed a request in the Ninth Circuit to dissolve the stay. And Idaho’s governor has conceded defeat.

UPDATE 2 The Ninth Circuit has called for responses: “Defendants response is due by noon PDT on Monday, October 13, 2014; Plaintiffs response is due by 5:00 p.m. PDT that same day.”

The Supreme Court has just denied Idaho’s request for a stay in its same-sex marriage case. The request initially went to Justice Kennedy in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the order notes he referred the request to the full Court.

State officials in Idaho had argued that the Court was likely to grant review when the state petitioned for it, even though the Court this week denied seven petitions in similar marriage cases.

The Court has previously granted stays in cases where state officials actually involved in a case requested it.

It’s not clear what Idaho’s next move will be.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) emailed a press release:

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected a request by State of Idaho officials to put on hold the federal appeals court decision that struck down as unconstitutional Idaho’s laws prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court’s decision allows the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to enter an order allowing its October 7th decision in the Idaho case to go into effect. Upon entry of such an order by the Ninth Circuit, the State of Idaho would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

On October 7th, the Ninth Circuit ruled 3-0 that Idaho’s ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Later that day, the Ninth Circuit ordered that its decision take effect immediately, which would have required Idaho to begin issuing marriage licenses the following morning.

On October 8th, United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily stayed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in response to a request by State of Idaho officials to keep that decision from taking effect while the state officials either ask for further review of the case by a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges or ask the Supreme Court to review the case. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court rejected that request and cleared the way for the Ninth Circuit to enter an order allowing its decision to take effect.

The four couples who successfully challenged Idaho’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples in the Ninth Circuit are represented by Boise attorneys Deborah A. Ferguson and Craig Durham of Ferguson Durham, PLLC, Deanne Maynard and Marc Hearron of the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

Statement by Shannon P. Minter, NCLR Legal Director:

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court confirms that there is no good reason to further delay allowing all Idaho families to enjoy the dignity, security, and protection that marriage provides. We hope that the Ninth Circuit will act quickly to make its decision effective so that all Idahoans will have the freedom to marry as soon as possible.”

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. coolbanker  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Idaho's next move should be to allow same sex marriages to begin immediately. The Supreme Court of the United States HAS SPOKEN!

  • 2. mcazmi  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    The federal judge in North Carolina issued his decision and order/injunction. Congratulations to North Carolina LGBT community.

  • 3. mcazmi  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    The federal judge in North Carolina issued his decision and order/injunction. Congratulations to North Carolina LGBT community.

  • 4. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Three cheers! What a relief that the Supreme Court declined to stay Latta v. The Butch Otter. This is a fine ending to the week.

  • 5. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm

    I think we are waiting on the 9th to reissue their mandate. It's 3 p.m. on Friday here in the West. I think we still have time.

  • 6. ebohlman  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Er, no, they still have to wait until they consider ID's request for en banc review. They erred in issuing the mandate immediately, which is what caused the temporary stay.

  • 7. flyerguy77  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    So meantime can they allow marriages?

  • 8. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    ebohlman – I see your point, but even just the 3 justices have the power to issue the mandate, as they have already proven. I don't think we can know why Justice Kennedy issued the temporary stay, and besides, he referred the matter of the stay to the court – and the court rejected it.

  • 9. brooklyn11217  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Per FRAP, they can shorten the time to issue the mandate…ID can still request en banc review, but it seems that marriages can happen while they do so.

  • 10. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    As stated above they will probably immediately file for en banc in the 9th.

  • 11. Retired_Lawyer  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    The last two sentences of the Judge's Order in the North Carolina UCC case: "[I]n the hours preceding this Order there have been a number of last minute motions filed by interested parties. The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue. It is a LEGAL issue….(original emphasis)"

  • 12. robbyinflorida  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Idaho can file for en banc but without a stay in place marriage should go forward.

  • 13. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    Guitarist – That doesn't mean that the mandate might not be reissued.

  • 14. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Interesting..I suppose the 9th won't issue a stay either.

  • 15. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    I guess not. We'll see what happens now.

  • 16. StraightDave  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    I thought the original mandate that was stayed by Kennedy automatically takes force once it is unstayed. Kennedy didn't burn it up, he just said "hang on a second". That second is now over.

  • 17. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    StraightDave – After Kennedy stayed the mandate, the 9th Circuit recalled it. They would have to reissue it for marriages to start taking place.

  • 18. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Yes, indeed. Reload Key Activated.

  • 19. Fortguy  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Will a decision in Kansas come today? You would think there would be some urgency since a marriage has already been performed.

  • 20. brandall  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    For the historical record and for use when the next state appeals an AC ME ruling to SCOTUS….This is the 3rd time the entire court has reviewed a stay appeal. In light of all the surprises, it is somewhat of a trend (and yes, I am not counting the 2 SCOTUS appeals denied on standing).

  • 21. guitaristbl  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    As for NC the Obama appointee who just got the case in his hands when the Bush appointee recused, acted faster and in a more determined way than the Bush appointee who had the case in his hands for months and kept asking for briefs.

  • 22. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    Freedom to Marry just tweeted a picture: #Idaho update: MT @GlenBeebyKBOI
    Large crowd gathering inside clerks office to see if licenses will be issued

  • 23. sfbob  |  October 10, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    I'm certain they will not.

  • 24. franklinsewell  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Reports Latah County, Idaho (Moscow, Idaho) is issuing licenses. Others are waiting for the mandate.

  • 25. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    i'm guessing why kenndey somewhat delayed the decision was because the justices have made some kinda agreement that when a stay request is made it will be refered to the entire court

  • 26. sfbob  |  October 10, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    That has an upside: it means the losers also lose the opportunity to find a different justice to request a stay from.

  • 27. SethInMaryland  |  October 10, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    i'm puting this on this tread to since it's related to Idaho:IDAHO: Gov. Butch Otter Surrenders, Marriage Licenses Issued In One County

    "The Supreme Court’s order lifting Justice Kennedy’s stay effectively allows same-sex marriage in Idaho as soon as the 9th Circuit directs compliance with its decision. I disagree with the court’s conclusion, which negates the 2006 vote of the people of Idaho, is contrary to the values of most Idahoans, and undermines fundamental states’ rights. But we are a nation of laws. Idaho now should proceed with civility and in an orderly manner to comply with any forthcoming order from the 9th Circuit." – Gov. Butch Otter.

  • 28. ragefirewolf  |  October 10, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    "Blah blah blah…I give up." LOL

  • 29. RQO  |  October 10, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    Well then, SCOTUS managed to sort itself out after a short bout of senility (mandatory retirement age, anyone?). Gay means stay gone, 9th Circuit opinion tacitly upheld. Most politicians have a memory half-life equal to one election cycle, so by Nov. 8 all but a few (AL & MS?) will be parroting "sorry folks, we must follow the law". For all my innate pessimism and old-guy perspective I can't help feeling that on this one issue of legal ME (with battles to come on the details), we have won.

  • 30. ebohlman  |  October 10, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    Perhaps Otter willl serve as a role model for Sam Brownback, Nikki Haley and (very shortly) Jan Brewer. I'm not holding my breath, though.

  • 31. F_Young  |  October 11, 2014 at 3:54 am

    Did SCOTUS just bless heightened scrutiny?

  • 32. cpnlsn88  |  October 11, 2014 at 5:17 am

    I don't know what you meant by senility but over recent days I found myself feeling like overworked US presidential candidates who forget how may states are in the US, what day of the week it is and who exactly does or doesn't have marriage equality.

  • 33. RLsfba  |  October 11, 2014 at 5:48 am

    This past week seems like it was a month long.

  • 34. DavidAZ1  |  October 11, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Better gird your loins for next week. Even though it's a short week due to holiday, we have the potential to add as many, if not more states than this week's tally. Arizona, Alaska, Montana, Kansas, Wyoming, South Carolina and, if we're lucky, the entire 6th Circuit. I'm hoping Arizona drops first, I live in the small town of Bisbee, AZ. We were the first in this very red state to pass a civil union ordinance. Can't wait to see it replaced by full marriage equality.

  • 35. RLsfba  |  October 11, 2014 at 8:02 am

    You're right, and I haven't given up on Sutton. I want to see my home state Ohio go blue. Good luck to you, looks like AZ will be blue soon. Getting my gird on.

  • 36. StraightDave  |  October 11, 2014 at 10:54 am

    If you're a football fan, just uttering those words makes you a traitor:
    "I want to see my home state Ohio GO BLUE!"

    I had one year of unsuccessful education in Ann Arbor back in the day.

    For those of you not in on the inside joke, "Go Blue" is the rallying cry for the U. of Michigan football team, never stronger than when playing their arch rivals Ohio State. I'm sure this was an inadvertant oxymoron by RLsfba

  • 37. David_Midvale_UT  |  October 11, 2014 at 11:14 am

    probably not

  • 38. hopalongcassidy  |  October 11, 2014 at 11:18 am

    No kidding, I feel a lot more like I do now than I did last week!

  • 39. TomPHL  |  October 11, 2014 at 11:43 am

    This former Michigander & Ann Arborite says "Go Blue"! Next week please.

  • 40. Ragavendran  |  October 11, 2014 at 11:44 am

    In their reply brief to the Supreme Court, the Idaho Governor, Ada County Recorder, and the State of Idaho loftily (and stupidly) proclaimed as follows:

    "Respondents’ Opposition confirms that the present application offers the Court a simple choice: If the Court wishes to signal that its recent denial of various marriage-related petitions was intended to finally and conclusively resolve the constitutionality of State laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman—as Respondents assume and the Ninth Circuit panel apparently believes—the Court should deny Idaho’s application."

    The Court then promptly denied Idaho's application. Idaho's cheeks are still crimson, I'd presume!

  • 41. RLsfba  |  October 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    I'm not a football fan. I don't care about inadverdant oxymorons. I didn't say anything about football. My dad's homophobic, republican, catholic family is from michigan. My dad and brother have graduated from UM. I spent a lot of time in Ann Arbor and St. Joe. I've been to UM games at the Ann Arbor stadium. I want my home state of Ohio to go blue on the map. My comments are not inadverdant. OHIO GO BLUE. I think to make some comment based on football is ludicrous.

  • 42. hopalongcassidy  |  October 11, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    It isn't often one is wearing a "kick me" sign that he has himself written and taped on his own back…

  • 43. Ragavendran  |  October 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    I'm loving the "Butch"-slapping!

  • 44. JayJonson  |  October 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    May I assume that the reply brief and its denial may be quoted in subsequent filings regarding other marriage cases? If so, that brief may haunt Butch for a while.

  • 45. Ragavendran  |  October 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    Not sure if the reply brief will have any weight, but the denial of a stay will. In fact, in a way, I'm glad the stay was denied after allowing time for briefing and careful consideration of arguments. This sends a clear message to the lower courts: "R.I.P. Gay=Stay".

  • 46. StraightDave  |  October 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Oh, sigh….
    I knew exactly what you meant. The reverse apparently isn't true.
    I saw humor in the situation but may have expressed it poorly. This time, I want OH blue, too.
    But I'd give $20 to see someone wave an updated wiki map at the Penn St v UM game tonight. Go Blue, indeed!

  • 47. Elihu_Bystander  |  October 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Lighten up it was just fun. However one has to be sensitive to your situation. Thank you for sharing something very personnel.

  • 48. StraightDave  |  October 11, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Butch: "I dare you. Put up or shut up".
    SCOTUS: "OK, fine"

    Wow, I really can't believe he did that. You don't draw lines in the sand for SCOTUS. No legal advisor worth a crumb would allow that to happen. Desparate? Deluded? Dumb/dumber/dumbest. Earns a spot in my top 10 quote list for this whole saga, which is starting to get pretty crowded.

  • 49. ijsnyder  |  October 11, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    Sorry for being daft, but I'm still confused as to why SCOTUS changed its mind on the stay.
    Were there additional requests or briefing from the parties, or did Kennedy simply issue a temporary stay until the whole court could consider it together?

  • 50. Ragavendran  |  October 11, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    Justice Kennedy, acting on his own on Wednesday, hurriedly issued a temporary stay of the Idaho mandate (he included Nevada first, but then clarified that that was a mistake by promptly vacating that portion) blocking marriages just a few minutes before they were scheduled to start. He requested a response from the Idaho Plaintiffs by Thursday evening. The Plaintiffs filed their response, and Idaho filed a reply to the response as well. Justice Kennedy then referred the fully briefed application to the full Court on Friday, which denied the application and vacated the temporary stay.

    The Ninth Circuit still has to formally lift its stay of the district court's injunction before marriages can legally proceed in Idaho, because the court, reacting to the temporary stay, recalled its mandate (though it wasn't required or ordered to do so by the Supreme Court). This is expected to happen late Monday or early Tuesday, once briefing on the request is completed.

  • 51. brandall  |  October 11, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    "These are not the arguments of serious people"…..sorry, just had to.

  • 52. brandall  |  October 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    No. However, it will stand in the 9th Circuit. This will eventually, someday go back up to SCOTUS when there are cases based on conflicting decision between AC's solely based on level of scrutiny.

  • 53. ijsnyder  |  October 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Thanks! That's perfectly clear. This happened so fast, it was hard to see the connective tissue. A good problem to have!

  • 54. brandall  |  October 11, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    Putting aside the "oophs" on which cases were temporarily stayed (Raga, the first stay actually listed 3 case numbers)….

    SCOTUS did not change its' mind.

    Idaho appealed to SCOTUS. Kennedy represents the 9th. He issued the stay and asked for briefings from both parties. He took those to the full court. The full court reviewed and voted to lift the stay.

    I believe this is the new "pattern" that will now be followed for all of the ME AC's decisions that are appealed to SCOTUS. That pattern is the assigned SCOTUS judge will issue a stay, briefs will be filed, the full court will review and the stay will be lifted. Unless there is a case with an actual novel, new position, they don't want to take this up at this time for unknown reasons.

  • 55. Ragavendran  |  October 11, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    I think you're probably right, brandall. We go from gay=stay to gay=temporary stay from now on, whenever the Supreme Court is moved.

    (The first stay did list three case numbers – one was Nevada and two were Idaho's consolidated appeals from the Governor and the State.)

  • 56. Ryan K.  |  October 11, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    GO BLUE! BBA'98 here…and thankful they finally won a game again tonight "Under the Lights" against Penn St.

    Interestingly, the turning the map blue is Wikipedia, whereas for Freedom to Marry it is coloring their map red, presumably for love. Then you deal with Dems are blue, GOP is red, yada yada yada.

  • 57. guitaristbl  |  October 12, 2014 at 3:59 am

    Butch made the mistake to essentially "blackmail" SCOTUS by forcing a certain reading of a denial of stay and it backfired, not only for him but for other cases IMO as well. Sutton should take notice at this brief and the answer it received as well.

  • 58. mariothinks  |  October 12, 2014 at 4:54 am

    I hear rapid backspacing and crazed re-typing coming from somewhere in Ohio.

  • 59. Ragavendran  |  October 12, 2014 at 5:17 am

    I'm not sure if this article has been mentioned here, but Mark Stern of Slate makes a somewhat believable case that Roberts might end up voting to strike down a state marriage ban (e.g., Texas) when the time comes:

  • 60. RQO  |  October 12, 2014 at 5:41 am

    Another thought on Butch Otter's brief challenge and SCOTUS' lifting of stay: neither wants to talk about us any longer. ME is – in the Red states – the political hot potato, the last musical chair that happens to be electric. As a matter of constitutional law, fairness, and, after reading through the numerous court briefings and opinions of the last 2 years, REASON, ME in all 50 states is inevitable. So is resentment from Republican, fundamentalist, and homophobic types.
    Both politicians and now SCOTUS seem to want this OVER without getting blamed themselves. After years of spectacular wrangling over mere civil unions in Colorado (finally achieved May 2013), the lack of real resistance to ME on the part of the Right has been stunning. Still no formal change of opinions, but everyone (with minor, extremist exceptions) was happy to blame it on the courts and keep it out of their campaigns.Quick acceptance of defeat and 24 hour action on the part of the AG here last week was welcomed by everyone.
    Facing sure defeat, Otter wanted finality, hence the wording? Meanwhile SCOTUS figured out everyone has heard of them, but most people don't even know what Circuit Appellate Court is, let alone who sits on them.
    There was even a Republican state senator in Mississippi or Alabama last week publicly stating is time to adjust to ME coming to their state. I'm beginning to think their will be foot dragging, but NO Circuit split, even from the 5th or the 8th.

  • 61. guitaristbl  |  October 12, 2014 at 6:18 am

    That's my opinion as well on this : Roberts cares about his legacy and his Windsor dissent never had the vile anti gay tones Scalia's did. They share much more with Sutton than just their vote on ACA IMO when if comes to judicial philosophy.

  • 62. Randolph_Finder  |  October 12, 2014 at 7:14 am

    I'm going to go through a little machiavalian gaming here both from the arguments of today *and* from 3 (or so) weeks ago.

    From the Standpoint of getting a Repubilcan in the White House in 2016, this was probably the 2nd best result (the best would have been "We'll take Utah's" case, arguments in January, 6-3 decision by May which would *completely remove* this issue from discussion by Mid 2016). Leading to a candidate from the "soft" right on the issue (Jeb, Christie, etc.)

    From the Standpoint of getting a Democrat in the White House, best would have been to have the Court put everyone on hold, until all of the Courts were in, have the 5th (or even better the 8th) have a decision against ME have arguments in December 2015 leading the issue to be a *live* one during the Republican Primaries giving a candidate who is *committed* to be against ME a boost in the Primaries like Cruz or Huckabee.(and a Decision just before the Republican Convention leading to 15 minutes of Huckabee talking about it during his acceptance speech.

    So who gets the advantage with the quick decision? Mostly the Corporate Republicans, who want the issue to steam in the background for the Theo-Cons, but don't care about it in their day-to-day.

  • 63. JayJonson  |  October 12, 2014 at 7:59 am

    I don't buy this article at all. I would be extremely surprised were Roberts to vote to strike down a state marriage ban.

    He probably hopes that the question is resolved without coming to SCOTUS at all; hence, I could see him as not voting to grant cert to the recent marriage equality cases. But if the fifth circuit rules as expected against marriage equality and the Court grants cert, it will be struck down on a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy writing essentially the same decision he wrote in Windsor.

    As to whether Roberts is a homophobe, I don't know; but I think his commitment is to a very conservative judicial philosophy that basically doesn't give a damn about equal protection of the law, particularly for homosexuals.

  • 64. RQO  |  October 12, 2014 at 8:13 am

    You are right. Republicans nervously await having to play it both ways while holding on to enough constituencies to win. (Glad we have pulled religious exemption from ENDA next Congress, because that's just the sort of stuff they'll try everywhere).
    Situation certainly has has changed in a week! Politicians want to blame "activist judges" and be done with it. SCOTUS will never achieve anything close to unanimity in telling 25% – 50% of the American people they are legally and morally wrong (Scalia, Alito and Thomas will NEVER give up their "simple moral disapproval"), and want to avoid an "Impeach Earl Warren" moment, so they want the blame on "activist judges", too, just not themselves. How about ones most Americans have never heard of – voila – Appellate Courts.
    I predict SCOTUS will NEVER hear a ME case. SCOTUS has removed any roadblocks, and I strongly suspect Robert's clerks are unofficially talking to Sutton's clerks (and some in the 5th and 8th) to make sure there will be no embarrassing split. I expect terse, 2 page pro-ME opinions, with impassioned novel-length dissents.
    End with a whimper, not a bang; but victory. I for one, think that will be seen 5 years from now as a good thing.

  • 65. StraightDave  |  October 12, 2014 at 8:18 am

    I hear the whirring and crunching of a shredder.
    Dewey defeats Truman.

  • 66. Ryan K.  |  October 12, 2014 at 8:23 am

    I'm with JJ on this one. I just don't see a 6-3 vote after Windsor (where I was hoping and frankly expected a 6-3 vote with the CJ included in the majority). At the same time, I am still puzzled as to why he went against the activist conservative three to not vote to grant cert in the five states that requested review. He implicitly either knew the outcome (5-4 to uphold the appeals court rulings) and decided to use the resources of SCTOUS elsewhere until there is a circuit split (coming from the 5th, if not the 6th before it), or he is going with precedent based on Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor and said the appeals courts used those cases to correctly decide their cases.

    The best thing in the world would be a summary judgement from SCOTUS with a one liner to the 5th: overruled and remanded, allowing the Texas case ruling to be upheld and overruling the Louisana case.

  • 67. JayJonson  |  October 12, 2014 at 11:32 am

    But we don't who voted how or why on the cert question. The conservatives may have all voted to deny cert because they would rather avoid a sweeping decision on marriage equality that may have implications for gay rights beyond marriage. They may have felt it better for the conservative cause to let marriage equality be decided by the Courts of Appeal than by SCOTUS.

    As it is, the appellate courts have so far reached the same conclusion but on differing grounds. What the conservatives may fear is a SCOTUS decision that establishes sexual orientation as a protected class or some other ruling that in effect makes discrimination against gay people unconstitutional.

    I think the Chief Justice and every other member of SCOTUS believes that if SCOTUS is made to decide the question as a result of a circuit split, the outcome will be a 5-4 decision in favor of marriage equality. That is why the conservatives have no interest in granting cert to a marriage equality case.

  • 68. Ryan K.  |  October 12, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Agree that we won't know for the foreseeable future. Your assessment seems very plausible, as that way there is not nationwide marriage equality until some time in the future that either all circuits have marriage equality or just one upholds a ban which then forces the hand of the Windsor 5. Which means RBG was accurate in her statement there is no rush required by the SCOTUS, as the federal court system is working as it should.

    While I still would have preferred the Windsor 5 to grant cert now and have a national ruling striking the remaining bans (I sit here in Florida unrecognized by the state), this past week was an amazing one to witness, and next few weeks will be as well. Most interested to see which way the 6th (i.e. Sutton) rules and if we get MI, OH, KY, & TN now (after a quick gay=temp stay situation) or if the 6th becomes the circuit and a case (my bet on Michigan given full trial) to get cert granted.

  • 69. Equality On TrialSome hea&hellip  |  October 13, 2014 at 8:47 am

    […] In case you missed it, the plaintiffs in the challenge to Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban have filed a request in the Ninth Circuit to dissolve the stay, and the court has called for responses by […]

  • 70. tushargoyal357  |  October 15, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    One of the best blog to find details related to Happy Diwali 2014 , to find Diwali Rangoli , Happy Diwali 2014 Greetings and Happy Diwali Wallpapers and Images 2014

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