Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

READ IT HERE: Lambda Legal’s brief in AFER-led challenge to Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Fourth Circuit map
Fourth Circuit map
Lambda Legal, who has a Virginia marriage case (a class-action) of their own, requested to intervene in Bostic v. Schaefer to represent their interests in challenges to the ban.

Their opening brief can be read here, thanks to Kathleen and Equality Case Files:

14-1167 #130 by Equality Case Files

For more information on Bostic v. Rainey (formerly Bostic v. McDonnell)from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.

19 Comments

  • 1. Josh  |  April 14, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    What are the highlights of this brief?

    Don't get me wrong, it's nice this is here for people who want to read 75 pages, but it seems like this site used to give great summaries of these briefs and that's what most people come here to read. I suppose there are too many cases going on now for each one to get the full coverage previously found for each headline. I'll search yahoo for the details of the briefs I guess, but their articles won't be as good as the ones usually on this site.

  • 2. Josh  |  April 14, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    I'm sorry, after I posted that I read it again and realized I shouldn't criticize. The people running this site work very hard and I didn't mean to be negative on anyone. Thank you for the time spent bringing all the great information you do! 🙂

  • 3. Rick O.  |  April 14, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    yes, when you look at what has transpired since Dec. 19, it' has been fast and furious. The last 2-3 weeks has been a torrent of briefs and decisions.

  • 4. ebohlman  |  April 14, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Also remember that several staff members are on the road because of the 10th Circuit cases.

  • 5. Mahnahvu  |  April 15, 2014 at 9:50 am

    The Table of Contents is a good place to start. It is a superb brief that focuses on heightened scrutiny.

  • 6. Fr. Bill  |  April 14, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Will someone please re-post the link(s) to the spreadsheets showing the status of pending cases and which cases are coming up for argument in the near future? Mahalo

  • 7. Ragavendran  |  April 14, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    Pat's Spreadsheet: http://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsGe0
    My Calendar (federal only): http://ecee.colorado.edu/ragad3/me.html

  • 8. Tim  |  April 14, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    Ragavendran: Your calendar doesn't have the 2 Wisconsin dates in May that Pat's does. Wondering if there's a reason. Also, want to know if the WI May info is accurate.

  • 9. Ragavendran  |  April 14, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    For district court cases, Pat's spreadsheet includes briefing schedules, whereas my calendar doesn't. I think Pat's May dates for the briefing schedule in Wolf are accurate.

  • 10. Tim  |  April 14, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    When do you think we'd know if WI will be decided by summary instead of the August trial?

  • 11. Ragavendran  |  April 14, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    A hearing on the summary judgment motion hasn't been scheduled yet. Hopefully, the hearing will take place in early June, with a decision in late June.

  • 12. Wondering  |  April 14, 2014 at 11:37 pm

    Can someone clarify why some cases challenging gay marriage laws were filed by individuals and others (like the one filed by Lambda Legal in Virginia) was filed as a class action?

    If individuals can file facial challenges to gay marriage bans, what is the benefit of getting certification of the class before filing a case challenging gay marriage bans?

  • 13. Rose  |  April 14, 2014 at 11:48 pm

    A Class-Action covers a broader base of individuals instead of just the 1 or 2 couples who are the plaintiffs on a more individual level.

    Sort of like the anti-gay folks with regard to Prop 8…….they claimed that because it was NOT a Class-action lawsuit that it SHOULD only cover the 2 couples and NOT the entire State of California.

    Hope that helped explain it a bit for ya!!!

  • 14. ragefirewolf  |  April 16, 2014 at 10:49 am

    I was wondering that myself. My best guess would be that it's optional and that if it's a facial challenge, superfluous. It may change the arguments or allow a different strategy. I'm not sure.

  • 15. Retired lawyer  |  April 15, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Although a long slog, this brief from the ACLU, Lamda Legal, and Jenner & Block demonstrates a facile mastery of all, repeat all, the issues, both big and small, in the marriage equality litigation. Not one single point ever raised by our opponents remains uncontroverted. The depth of scholarship will, I hope, serve as a resource for the judges of the 4th Circuit. However, I would not recommend it as casual reading for anyone. The brief submitted by Attorney General Herring for Registrar Rainey is a better bet for a quick understanding of the arguments on behalf of marriage equality.

  • 16. Rick O.  |  April 16, 2014 at 4:53 am

    I noticed Boies & Olson plugging for heightened scrutiny, too. As Lambda and ACLU are, perhaps more than anyone due to long experience on countless discrimination cases, highly aware, nothing would do more to solve a host of problems, not just marriage equality. Alas, I don't see heightened security being granted by the current Supreme Court. Roberts' joking comments about gay political power during oral arguments in Windsor were discouraging. Viewed along with Citizens United, it confirms my suspicions that the Supremes live in a very insulated D.C. bubble. As usual, it will come down to Kennedy, who will prefer to do things by halves.

  • 17. hairy guys  |  April 18, 2014 at 2:49 am

    Adult men grown ups usually are not impacted as much while youngsters, it is vital intended for homosexual pipe to know precisely how older head illness can impact these people. Grownup head illness is usually brought on by disease within the Eustachian conduit, at the internal hearing.

  • 18. Kyle  |  April 18, 2014 at 9:44 am

    If you're going to troll, be good at it. You're a boring troll. Nothing worse than a troll that bores.

  • 19. Rik  |  April 18, 2014 at 11:34 am

    A boring and mostly incomprehensible troll.

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