Ninth Circuit to hear arguments in Nevada marriage equality case “as soon as possible”
February 12, 2014
LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials
This week, the same-sex couples who brought the case pressed the Ninth Circuit to hold a hearing soon; the request came after the state officials defending the same-sex marriage ban dropped their defense of the ban. Carson City Clerk Alan Glover and, most recently, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, have withdrawn their arguments supporting the ban.
The Nevada case has been on a parallel track with Jackson v. Abercrombie, the challenge to Hawaii’s same-sex marriage ban. The Ninth Circuit’s order today separates the two cases. Since Hawaii’s marriage equality law has been passed and has gone into effect, and there are requests to dismiss the Jackson case entirely. The order doesn’t address the requests to dismiss the appeal, but it does note that the Hawaii plaintiff couples can re-file the same request to put the case back on a parallel track with Sevcik if the Jackson case is not dismissed: “In the event the Jackson cases are not dismissed, the parties may file a renewed request to have those cases assigned to the panel thatwill consider the above-captioned appeal.”
These latest actions are a result of a Ninth Circuit decision last month in a case involving a juror who was removed from the jury pool based on his sexual orientation. In SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories, the Ninth Circuit held that jurors can’t be excluded based on their sexual orientation, and that laws classifying people on the basis of their sexual orientation warrant a heightened form of judicial scrutiny. The decision, which came out on the same day that briefs were filed in defense of Nevada’s ban, rendered the arguments made in the briefs meaningless. The filings only addressed rationalizations for the same-sex marriage ban, under the assumption that heightened scrutiny was barred by existing Ninth Circuit precedent. The Carson City Clerk and Attorney General Masto concluded that the stricter standard of review made it unlikely their arguments could win.
When the state defendants requested to withdraw their briefs, the same-sex couples filed a request for a quick hearing on the merits of the marriage case, pointing out that with the state’s latest actions, there’s no good reason to wait.
The Ninth Circuit gave no indication of when the arguments might take place.
Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for this filing
For more information on Sevcik v. Sandoval from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.
54 Comments
1.
Bruno71 | February 12, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Any guesses as to what the soonest it would be that ME could come to Nevada (and Oregon…and possibly the other 9th Circuit states and territories)? Obviously a court date has to be set here first. Is it possible a ruling comes down, SCOTUS declines standing of appeal and marriages commence before Election Day this year?
2.
Tyler O. | February 12, 2014 at 12:18 pm
I would say that is certainly a strong possibility.
3.
Stefan | February 12, 2014 at 12:33 pm
That's if an appeal is even filed, which seems unlikely now since the state has dropped the defense.
4.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 12:56 pm
I guess oral arguments could be held around April and the decision handed down by the end of summer at the latest, if not sooner. That will (at this point, extremely likely) bring ME to Nevada. The Coalition won't appeal – even if it does so, it will be quickly dismissed with Hollingsworth as precedent.
As for other states in the 9th, assuming the ruling is broad, I guess that in those states with existing lawsuits pending (such as Arizona), plaintiffs will move for an expedited summary judgment, and for those states without lawsuits, filing one will result in a quick summary judgment. Decisions in any of these lawsuits could be appealed by the respective State all the way back to SCOTUS. (But Nevada will continue to have ME during this process.)
5.
sfbob | February 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm
I suspect the Coalition will fight to the bitter end. They tend to do that sort of thing. Even if their appeal is dismissed using Hollingsworth as a precedent they are pretty much certain to go to SCOTUS to ask them "did you really mean it?" or any such other words as they can craft to create the impression that their situation is different from the backers of Prop 8. Of course SCOTUS will refuse to grant cert and then the Coalition (just as the backers of Prop 8 did) claiming that they decisions don't mean what they in fact mean. Because that's just how they are.
6.
Bruno71 | February 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm
This. It's probably hard to say how fast SCOTUS would deal with smacking down their standing to appeal, but I hope it'd be fast.
7.
StraightDave | February 13, 2014 at 6:37 am
It doesn't matter how long they take. I cannot imagine any possible way in which a stay would be granted by anyone, even SCOTUS. Their precedent is very clear – no standing, even in the extreme CA case where the CA SC said proponents had standing.
8.
grod | February 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Bob does the fact that the Coalition independently petitioned for cert before judgment to the US Supreme and it was denied last June 27th, have any bearing on whether they can reapply post-judgment. I never understood how the Coalition, having won Sevcik at the district court level could have petitioned the Supreme Court but with the Coalition's lawyer Monte N Stewart of Utah's-request-for-a-Stay fame, leading the charge, any avenue open to him apparently is one that he would peruse. ,
9.
sfbob | February 12, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Parties bring legal actions of all sorts that they really don't have standing to bring. I assume that they were denied cert in part because, having won at the district level, they had no standing to petition for cert. That's not going to stop them from requesting cert; maybe they figured that SCOTUS would grant them cert just because a sufficient number of justices might still want to hear the case or something. Who can say for sure what their reason might have been. God told them to do it perhaps? It is my (non-lawyerly) understanding that people or legal entities not infrequently go to court even though they have no basis for doing so. They get slapped down but that to them is just part of the process. Maybe they figured it was a risk that was worth taking; I don't know that there's any penalty for doing that sort of thing unless you're like Orly Taitz and make yourself such a nuisance filing frivolous claims that some judge decides they've had enough of you.
I suppose the plaintiffs, because they lost initially and therefore clearly had standing, wanted the case to be heard on appeal first. At the time the state was still defending the law so there's no reason the appeals court wouldn't have agreed to hear the appeal and at that level the Coalition still had standing because the case they had been party to and had won was being appealed.
If the plaintiffs lose on appeal (seems unlikely at this point but I suppose it could happen) then they would certainly have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the plaintiffs win on the other hand, the Court seems to have made it clear that outside parties don't have standing to appeal. But that won't keep them from trying anyway and yes, with someone like Stewart as counsel, I can't imagine they won't go as far as they possibly could–even if any reasonable person would know they have no standing and would certainly be turned down–because while they might not have standing they're still capable of writing briefs and getting paid for doing so.
10.
Deeelaaach | February 13, 2014 at 1:02 am
We said that about Hollingsworth as well – SCOTUS likely would deny cert due to lack of standing. We said that they'd been quite clear about that in the Arizona case where they'd said the backers did not have standing. But four judges voted to take on Hollingworth anyway, then tossed it out again saying they wouldn't grant standing (please forgive me if I have not gotten it spot on). Which four voted to grant cert and why? We don't know and may not know until all nine judges papers have been released, and we may never know.
The point is that four judges could still grant cert for whatever reason, only to likely be thrown out yet again, assuming that we have the same 5-4 split. And sorry, I don't have the brain power right now to confirm that it was a 5-4 split.
So we know they should not grant cert, but we have no idea what they will actually do since we don't know why they granted cert in Hollingsworth in the first place, when we thought it likely they wouldn't take it due to the ruling regarding Arizona.
11.
StraightDave | February 13, 2014 at 6:45 am
In the Arizona case, SCOTUS said they were "unaware of any state law" giving initiative proponents standing. In Hollingsworth, CA SC case law gave them standing. So it was worth another look. SCOTUS then said even that was not good enough, pretty much slamming the door shut on all proponents in the future.
12.
Stefan | February 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Will each state even have to have its own lawsuit, since the ruling would apply to all states in the Circuit?
13.
Bruno71 | February 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada (and Hawaii still) already do have cases pending. Once the Nevada case is finalized, the district courts (or the 9th, depending on where the cases are at the time) would likely dismiss those cases.
14.
Zack12 | February 12, 2014 at 3:39 pm
Even if it's a narrow ruling, it would certainly apply to Oregon which has the same seperate and unequal system that Nevada does.
15.
Dr. Z | February 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Actually, given the glacial pace of the Ninth Circuit, it's remotely possible Oregon's ban could be struck down (and not appealed by the Oregon AG) even before Nevada's.
16.
Kevin | February 12, 2014 at 4:12 pm
If the cases are still pending in the district courts, the courts will decide them, not dismiss them.
17.
Mike in Baltimore | February 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm
According to the web site for questions about the Ninth Circuit, from filing to hearing can take approximately 12-20 months from the notice of appeal date. If briefing isn't delayed, approximately 9-12 months from completion of briefing.
The date for filing has now elapsed, so we are waiting for the establishment of a hearing date before an estimate of briefing can take place.
From the same site: "How long does it take from the time of argument to the time of decision?
"The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year." In other words, decisions could be handed down in 2 months, or 22 months, but most are in the 3 months to a year range.
Before Election Day this year is possible, but not 'writ certain', based on the above timelines, especially since we still don't know the hearing date. Since the Circuit has agreed to a 'fast-track' schedule, the time frames would probably be tighter. How much, I don't know.
My impression of the Ninth Circuit is that it is one of the slower of Circuits to hand down decisions (from filing of appeal to final decision).
ME in other states in the Ninth? Depends a lot on how narrow or broad the ruling is. At this date, there is little information on which to predict. Remember, in Hollingsworth, the decision was very narrow so as to apply only to California. This case, with different judges, might follow that same rationale, or the decision might be much broader.
In other words, the timing of the entire process right now is closer to a crap shoot than a regimen for determining exact dates when this, that and the other occurs.
18.
Shaun | February 12, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Plaintiff-Appellants and Defendant-Intervenor-Appellees have already briefed.
19.
Mike in Baltimore | February 12, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Have they?
Briefs have been submitted, but the court changed the rules on the date of defendant briefs. Are new briefs needed, or are briefs now moot?
20.
Shaun | February 13, 2014 at 11:39 am
Yes.. Defendant-Intervenor-Appellees submitted their briefs January 24. Those are the brief that Carson City Clerk Alan Glover and AG Cortez Masto / Gov Sandoval withdrew.
21.
Jon | February 12, 2014 at 1:51 pm
The effect on the other states will depend what those states want to achive. Assuming Nevada doesn't appeal a 9th circuit decision, I expect Oregon's AG would announce that Oregon's amendment is unconstitutional, and the state will start issuing licenses immediately. In red states, the state will assert the ruling doesn't bind them, someone will have to sue, which (after two summary judgements) would likely get appealed up to the Supreme Court.
I suppose it's possible that a purplish or more libertarian state (AZ or MT) could also accept the ruling, but I'd think it would be too much of a red meat issue to pass it up.
22.
Shaun | February 12, 2014 at 2:21 pm
The state would not appeal a ruling favoring marriage equality, since they have already asked for an been granted leave to withdraw from the case.
23.
George | February 12, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Not sure why you got down voted since I think this is what will likely happen. I mean, as much as I would love Idaho to just take a 9th circuit ruling, they likely would just refuse to comply and force someone to sue them. Two summary judgements like you said (one at the district court which is bound by the 9th circuit and the second at the 9th circuit itself which is just going to restate its ruling) with a quick appeal to SCOTUS.
And seeing as how SCOTUS seems willing to stay same-sex marriage rulings when they reach it, Idaho et al would likely get a temporary reprieve pending their hearing.
I think that's how it'll go down. Our side is being really naive if we think that some red states are just going to accept an appellate decision without a fight just because Nevada doesn't appeal. Remember, they think gays are teh icky; they'll fight till the bitter end.
24.
Zack12 | February 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm
That's the truth even though some people don't want to hear it.
Our state anti-gay group, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms AKA New York Family Research Foundation fought all the way to the State Supreme Court even though they had no chance of winning, just like the bigots in Hawaii are doing.
Bottom line, they will fight until the bitter end.
25.
Bruno71 | February 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm
I think if the 9th Circuit had the last word in this case, which it appears they will, a state like Idaho would be loath to not comply. However, I do think you're right that they might challenge in federal court anyway, in hopes of getting SCOTUS to look at the merits of the case rather than just dismiss based on standing. But I have a hard time imagining that there would be non-compliance in the meantime.
26.
Stefan | February 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm
But they may also find it's not worth using state resources to defend it, especially if the ruling is broad and sweeping throughout the entire Circuit.
27.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm
I'm almost sure that Alaska or Idaho or Montana will disagree that the 9th's ruling striking down Nevada's ban means their bans are gone too, and therefore there would need to be lawsuits filed there to get the Courts to force them. And I'm also almost sure that at least one of those States will resist and appeal all the way to SCOTUS. What I don't know is how long it would take for this to happen. And SCOTUS of course, would likely simply deny cert. rather than look into resurrecting Sevcik v. Sandoval (not sure if SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to resurrect cases that closed at a lower circuit court even if those decisions impact a directly related case that comes before it).
28.
bythesea | February 12, 2014 at 4:33 pm
If it's a broad ruling it will be in effect across the Ninth, no matter whether some states like it. Further resistance, if anything, would pressure SCOTUS to settle the issue asap otherwise (meaning nationwide ME and nationwide heightened scrutiny). If I were a bigot, I'd want to push that as far into the future as possible.
29.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm
The ruling of the 9th, however broad, cannot directly strike down the bans of states other than Nevada, since they are not being challenged and are not parties to the case. It would lack jurisdiction to directly strike down the bans of all these states. So, what is meant by a broad ruling is that the reasoning/rationale of the 9th in striking down Nevada's ban would "obviously" apply to all the other States' bans as well, i.e., pure equal protection. Each State's AG can then interpret the ruling correctly and let go of their bans voluntarily (like Nevada did after the 9th ruled on Smithkline even though it wasn't necessary), but they are not required to do so of their own accord. (Oregon's AG probably would, but I don't see any other states doing it on their own.)
I wish it were different, that is, the 9th can just go knock on the doors of all states in its jurisdiction and tell them their bans are no longer enforceable. It would save everyone a lot of time and money.
30.
bythesea | February 12, 2014 at 4:59 pm
You are correct, but I think your level of concern is a bit high. A broad ruling will with time lead to ME in the Ninth whatever snarls and hiccups come.
31.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 5:20 pm
I agree. Perhaps I want the states to rebel just so that they can poke SCOTUS. The more pokes that SCOTUS gets, the more they would probably feel the need to settle this soon for the whole country.
Besides being happy for Nevada, I was frustrated by that State's decision to drop out of the case (just like, in retrospect, I was frustrated that California dropped out of Hollingsworth) because now this case cannot reach SCOTUS properly.
32.
bythesea | February 12, 2014 at 5:26 pm
The things is the case in the Tenth should in a comparable time-frame anyway, and there are some backup cases failing that.
33.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Yup. If SCOTUS wants to avoid the issue and deny cert to any marriage equality case, I want them to have to deny cert to as many such cases as possible so it makes them look really bad and/or cowardly. Roberts wouldn't want that.
If it will significantly increase the chances of SCOTUS taking up a ME case their next term, I would like the 10th to uphold Utah's and Oklahoma's bans and lead to a circuit split with the 9th.
A Federal Judge (Terence Kern, Oklahoma), has called their bluff already, for f***'s sake! http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/01/15/okl…
34.
Mike in Baltimore | February 12, 2014 at 6:33 pm
"The ruling of the 9th, however broad, cannot directly strike down the bans of states other than Nevada, since they are not being challenged and are not parties to the case."
I guess that same principal also applies to SCOTUS decisions. That would mean 'Loving' would have only applied to Virginia (since the case only involved Virginia's law); 'Lawrence' would only have applied to Texas (since the case only involved Texas' law); etc.
Since SCOTUS slapped down Virginia's attempt to keep 'Lawrence-like' laws 'alive', I don't think SCOTUS would agree with your 'opinion'.
Even in the Ninth, the playing field changed when the court issued the ruling in SmithKline Beechum. That decision had exactly zero to do with same gender marriages in Nevada, but it caused briefs to be withdrawn.
35.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 10:45 pm
It's not "my opinion". It's a fact of law. Yes, the same principle applies to SCOTUS decisions as well. The fact that SCOTUS denied cert in Moose v. MacDonald simply means they do not wish to take up the case. The key word I've used in my statement is "directly". Loving only struck down Virginia's ban directly. Since the decision used broad language that could be applied to other states as well, it struck down other states' bans as well, but only by extension. Same with Lawrence.
I think its a technicality and wording that we disagree on. I agree that "in principle" a broad ruling would strike down bans in all states in that Court's jurisdiction, but technically, a Court can only issue orders to those that are parties to the lawsuit. I hope I have made myself clear.
36.
Pat | February 13, 2014 at 12:56 am
Interesting discussion. I also thought, like ByTheSea said, that "if it's a broad ruling it will be in effect across the Ninth, no matter whether some states like it".
If that's not the case it's really odd and annoying that other lawsuits would be necessary to force the remaining 9th circuit states to comply! Are there any precedent of states resisting to an Appelate court decision and how much drama can it get?
37.
Ragavendran | February 13, 2014 at 9:27 am
ByTheSea is correct, as is Mike above that "in principle" the legal "air" is changed in composition throughout the 9th Circuit once it issues a broad ruling on Nevada's case. However, individual state AGs or county clerks can either do the right thing by acknowledging it and start issuing licenses on their own, or, in conservative states like Alaska, Idaho, Montana, the Courts would be asked to force their hands.
And Pat, for an example of a state that kicked and screamed all the way to SCOTUS resisting an appellate decision, look no further than Virginia. In 2003, SCOTUS invalidated Texas's sodomy law through Lawrence v Texas. As recently as last fall, Virginia wanted sodomy laws in its state upheld in circumstances where a minor is involved (it tried to argue why Lawrence shouldn't apply in Moose v. MacDonald) and SCOTUS simply snubbed it by denying cert.
38.
bythesea | February 13, 2014 at 10:52 am
Yes, but even VA did not enforce sodomy laws since the ruling, Cooch wanted to keep it enforceable when a minor was involved. I really think your concerns are largely exaggerated.
39.
Ragavendran | February 13, 2014 at 11:07 am
On VA, that is a good point. The state was trying to get their sodomy law reinstated in the case of minors.
Perhaps you are right that my concerns are exaggerated, and I do hope so, but my intuition tells me that there will be at least one state that will kick and scream and refuse to accept that the 9th's ruling on Nevada (if it has broad language) requires it to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Most red states, in general, will fight to the bitter end if they can, even if it is a lost cause, no matter how obvious the fact.
40.
Sam | February 12, 2014 at 9:25 pm
This is how I see it playing out:
– The 9th Circuit panel hears Sandoval w/in a month and issues a ruling shortly thereafter. If the randomly-selected panel is super-conservative, which is possible, though not likely,we could lose. If that happens, we would go to the full 9th Circuit or to SCOTUS.
– If we win, which is far more likely, there will be no appeal by the other side. If it is a narrow win, marriage equality comes to NV and OR only. If it is a broad ruling, marriage equality comes to MT, ID, AZ, Guam and the Marianas.
– Shortly after a win by our side, one of the more conservative states in the 9th Circuit – maybe ID or AZ – will challenge the decision by denying a gay couple a license. That couple will sue. Because the Sandoval panel decision would be binding, the couple will win in the district court and will win again before a 9th Circuit panel. At that point, the conservative state would be in a position to seek review by the full 9th Circuit or SCOTUS, neither of which would be bound by the Sandoval panel decision.
– So it is possible that we could win Sandoval and bring marriage equality to as many as 5 new states. But since the win is based on the application of the federal Constitution, it won't truly be a secure victory until SCOTUS resolves this issue. It is possible that we could win Sandoval, gay couples could start marrying, and then months or years later, SCOTUS could hold that the Constitution does not confer any right to marry for gay couples. If that happened, our Sandoval win would be reversed, the 5 states would revert back to their original bans. However, I think that the marriages that took place in the intervening period would still be safe.
41.
Stefan | February 12, 2014 at 11:04 pm
You forgot about Alaska, which is also in the 9th Circuit.
42.
Ragavendran | February 12, 2014 at 11:05 pm
I think (c) is most likely to happen. In their next term, SCOTUS will have Utah and Oklahoma before them, possibly Virginia (given the efficiency of the 4th Circuit), and one or more of the states of the 9th Circuit indirectly appealing Sandoval.
My guess is that SCOTUS will deny cert to all these cases, though that would seem to make the court look cowardly (not that most of the nine care – the Chief might).
In Fall 2015:
– Ohio, Kentucky and Missouri cases, along with others that only ask that states recognize out-of-state gay marriages will reach SCOTUS.
– Simultaneously, more cases that seek states to allow in-state marriages, such as those from Texas, Pennsylvania, etc. will reach SCOTUS.
And here, there is a good menu for the Supremes. They could still deny cert to the latter cases, and just choose to take on one of the former cases to continue to advance the marriage equality cause incrementally. So, states should recognize out-of-state legal marriages, but their bans on in-state marriages will be untouched.
Then, the final piece would be resolved soon thereafter, perhaps in the very next term that follows.
43.
Stefan | February 12, 2014 at 11:08 pm
I don't think any Governor in one of the states will flat out deny the ruling, but you'll likely have some clerks who will refuse to issue licenses.
44.
Rick O. | February 13, 2014 at 6:07 am
About Idaho – they are a small government, Mormon state with very limited government resources (a Utah clone). Politically they would probably love to defy the 9th Appeals, but might not be able to do so financially. Also, would a high profile appellate lawyer really want to take the case?
45.
Pat | February 13, 2014 at 1:16 am
If ME comes to the whole 9th Circuit (6 extra states: OR, ID, MT, NV, AZ, AK) that would be 23 states (+DC) with marriage equality, or 43.5% of the US population!
Add the UT/OK cases in the 10th Circuit that's potentially 5 more states (UT, OK, CO, KS, WY) for a total of 28, representing 48.4% of the US population!
Then of course, there's Virginia: adding this state alone would bring the total to 51% of the US population.
46.
Octa | February 13, 2014 at 2:21 am
Also if things end up in our favour in MI and PA that would bring the total to 57.84% of the US population. (31 states + D.C and also Guam and the Northern Mariana islands).
I think it is possible that this could be the case by the end of the year, although I'm not sure if all of these jurisdictions will have actual marriage equality by December since I don't know if these would be stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court and how long the stay would last if they were.
47.
Stefan | February 13, 2014 at 4:06 am
-The 9th Circuit case is likely to end at that stage due to no one with standing wanting to appeal a likely ruling in our favor.
-Pennsylvania I also suspect will end at the district court level as the 3rd Circuit is likely unwilling to take the case since New Jersey and Delaware already have same-sex marriage (meaning the entire Circuit will have it).
-The 10th and 4th Circuits (and possibly the 6th depending on how fast they can rule) are likely to have cases ready for the Supreme Court to accept in time to hear in the 2015 term.
48.
ebohlman | February 13, 2014 at 4:42 am
The 3d Circuit will have no choice but to take the PA case (assuming PA appeals); losing parties in Federal district courts have an automatic right of appeal.
49.
Zack12 | February 13, 2014 at 5:04 am
PA would be easy for the Supreme Court to punt on IF we win due to the fact that the other two states in the 3rd circuit (DE and NJ) already have marriage equality.
50.
Stefan | February 13, 2014 at 5:28 am
And they very well may not appeal. Corbett has indicated so far a very weak defense of the current law.
51.
Pat | February 13, 2014 at 6:11 am
And since the PA case is heard in June, Corbett may no longer be in office by the time a ruling is issued. (Or if a Dem wins the gubernatorial election in November, the state might also later on withdraw its appeal like was done in Virginia)
52.
StraightDave | February 13, 2014 at 7:14 am
Totally OT, but not really…
(at home in a snowstorm) I'm watching a live webcast now from my employer that's like a monthly townhall Q&A with 3 random executives. They each usually start out with a brief intro and a personal "fun fact". The first man says "for my fun fact, under the current hot topic of wellness, I have never broken a bone. And I'm happy to say that my husband has never broken a bone either."
NOT. A. RIPPLE. No gasp, no noise, no chuckling, nothing. On to the next guy…
.. seamlessly.
I love living in Massachusetts!
53. Equality On TrialPlaintif&hellip | August 7, 2014 at 12:15 am
[…] appeals, and hold argument at the earliest possible time, in April. The brief also points to the recent Ninth Circuit order granting a request for a fast hearing in Lambda Legal’s marriage case. And they suggest that, […]
54. Equality On TrialNinth Ci&hellip | August 7, 2014 at 2:01 am
[…] Ninth Circuit has said they will hold oral arguments in the Nevada case as soon as possible, though a date hasn’t been set. The Oregon case is in district court awaiting a decision on […]