Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals expedites Indiana same-sex marriage appeal

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

In a new order, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has expedited the briefing schedule in challenges to Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban. As previously reported, three cases were consolidated in the appeals court, and a stay was granted, halting marriages in the state.

The new briefing schedule allows all briefs to be filed at the beginning of August:

1.The briefs and required short appendices of the appellants are due by July 15, 2014.

2.The briefs of the appellees are due by July 29, 2014.

3.The reply briefs of the appellants, if any, are due by August 5, 2014.

The court has also called for a response to Lambda Legal’s request for the state of Indiana to continue recognizing the legal same-sex marriage of a couple with one terminally-ill spouse.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 30, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    I would expect a revised order soon, since the defendants are not required to file any briefs, only appellants.

  • 2. RCChicago  |  July 1, 2014 at 4:53 am

    I'm having trouble opening the new order. The responses here indicate hopeful news, I would guess in regards to the stay. Can someone please spell this out for me? Thanks!

  • 3. davepCA  |  June 30, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    This is shaping up to be a pretty good summer, isn't it?

  • 4. ragefirewolf  |  June 30, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    I'd say 🙂

  • 5. Corey_from_MD  |  June 30, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    Indeed. I would like to join in to the happy pause that you are experiencing as you take it all in!

  • 6. KarlS  |  June 30, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    According to the order, the state has about 19 hours from right now (1700 CST) to file their response to the motion to lift the stay.

  • 7. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    And the plaintiffs had zero hours to respond to the state's motion to stay last Friday. How perfectly fair!

  • 8. brandall  |  June 30, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Moving back to Boulder, CO marriages. The AG has giving the Boulder county clerk until tomorrow to cease and desist or else….I need a large whiteboard to track all the daily changes in all these states.

  • 9. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    The AG is offering a deal. Stop issuing marriage licenses, and we can file a joint request with the Colorado Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether the clerk can legally issue licenses or not.

  • 10. davepCA  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Gosh what a great "deal" to provide a balance between the harm caused by denying civil marriages to same sex couples and the harm caused to others by granting those marriages to same sex couples….. oh…. wait…..

  • 11. brandall  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    LMAO! Good one!

  • 12. brandall  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    I have to say I'm hoping the county clerk doesn't take the deal which should allow the marriages to continue until the CO Supreme Court decides what to do.

    Ragavendran, since this is local to you, do you think the county clerk will take the deal? No penalties for an incorrect opinion!

  • 13. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    I actually differ with you on this one, brandall. From the beginning, I thought that this was a bad idea, even though I do sympathize with the clerk and I understand her actions. I think the clerk should grasp this opportunity for an expeditious resolution by the Colorado Supreme Court so that all clerks in Colorado who support marriage equality and want to issue licenses but are afraid, can proceed to do so. Article VI Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution (in laying out the terms for the Supreme Court's original jurisdictional authority) provides that:

    "The supreme court shall give its opinion upon important questions upon solemn occasions when required by the governor, the senate, or the house of representatives."

    Since the AG is offering to invoke this provision in forcing the Colorado Supreme Court to resolve the issue, the clerk is better off accepting this offer and taking this clean route. The alternative option will likely be very messy and could take longer to be resolved.

    As to my opinion on whether she will take the deal or not, sadly, I have no idea! I wish that she would, but I don't know her or any history about her – I only moved to Colorado from California last year 🙂

  • 14. brandall  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Very nicely stated as usual.

    There is the side of me that remembers Boise/Olsen's remarks last week about Gavin Newsome putting the issue on the table in California and "setting off the lightbulbs for a lot of people." So, from a getting out the message POV, I admire what she is doing.

    But, as you stated, the goal is the shortest path to resolution on a state-by-state basis until this goes to SCOTUS. I cannot disagree with your assessment about it getting messy and even perhaps diverting the message from ME to a pissing contest between the AG and the clerk.

  • 15. Bruno71  |  June 30, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    She really should take the deal. Even if she believes that the 10th's ruling will withstand appeals, the CO SC will almost certainly have a say in it at some point (as in the case brought to the CA SC after Hollingsworth appeals were voided by SCOTUS). May as well expedite it.

  • 16. RobW303  |  June 30, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    I think the clerks should make a counter-offer: they'll desist if the AG agrees NOT to appeal when the Colorado Supreme Court either agrees with the clerks in principle or affirms District Judge Crabtree's upcoming ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. He's going against the prevailing will of the people, the 10th CCA judgment, the judgment of every district court to take up the case recently and the head of the executive branch, not to mention violating the rights of every LGBT person in the state. How wrong does one person—even a politician—need to be before he relents?

  • 17. scream4ever  |  July 1, 2014 at 12:30 am

    She should go further and request that he not appeal the district judges decision in our favor.

  • 18. DrPatrick1  |  June 30, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    I disagree, I don't think she should take the appeal. The marriages are somewhat at risk (only if SCOTUS ULTIMATELY OVERRULES the 10th. If it is unconstitutional to deny the licenses, then it always was so, and there would be no reason for CO not to approve those marriages) but that risk is only to those couples who choose to marry now. There is little to no risk to the clerk, other than a subsequent order to stop. So, basically the AG will be forced to go to the courts in any case.

    I like an orderly process, but I hate the denial of constitutional rights. Given the choice, I'll deal with the mess.

  • 19. JayJonson  |  July 1, 2014 at 5:35 am

    I agree with DrPatrick1. The couples knew that there was some risk involved in getting married when they did, but that risk will be decided one way or the other fairly soon. Should their marriages be rendered void, they can always get married again elsewhere.

  • 20. Fledge01  |  July 1, 2014 at 9:17 am

    I agree with DrPatrick1. Boulder has no real incentive to expedite to the Colorado Supreme court. They are issuing licenses right now regardless. They are either valid or not as of today. Why do we need to know the answer to that right now. Just go on with your life as if your marriage was valid. Sue the State if they refuse to give you your benefits.

    At least now, people are getting married and they are probably obtaining benefits with the feds (they can claim married on their tax returns, some other states will recognize their marriage). If Boulder stops, new people won't be getting married and therefore the new people certainly won't be able to obtain any benefits of marriage.

    In what other scenario would it be ok for an AG to say to someone, I think what you are doing is illegal, could you please stop doing it while I take you to court? The AG can always request an immediate temporary restraining order right now. Its in the AG's interest for this to be expedited and they can request that on their own. So Boulder's decision of whether to stop or not has little influence on what the AG will try to do.

  • 21. Japrisot  |  July 1, 2014 at 9:26 am

    I agree with this as well. She has an oath to uphold the law, both state and federal, and there are now more than a dozen federal court opinions that have unanimously struck down marriage bans. Such is the state of the law right now, and she is abiding by these decisions.

  • 22. brandall  |  July 1, 2014 at 3:18 am

    She punted asking for more time to review until July 10th:

    "We received the Attorney General's letter late Friday and began reviewing it with our County Attorney and his staff. Because this is such an important issue we have requested additional time from the Attorney General's office to review their proposal. We hope they give us the time requested to fully review their proposal with our legal counsel."

  • 23. jpmassar  |  June 30, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    The article is date May 13th.

  • 24. Margo Schulter  |  June 30, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    Her I agree with Ragavendran: the clerk would be well advised to take the deal, which may lead to a speedy resolution while avoiding a situation like that of San Francisco in 2004 where marriages are later found to be invalid even though the ban is ultimately stricken.

    The difference may be that in 2004, there was a very long road ahead in California, so that those San Francisco ceremonies were galvanizing even if legally not yet valid. In 2014, in Colorado and elsewhere, the prospects for victory are much closer, and marriages on firmer legal ground would have the advantage of confidence in the federal benefits which Attorney General Eric Holder wants to make available wherever there is a legal basis for so doing.

  • 25. RobW303  |  June 30, 2014 at 6:15 pm

    But this is new: Utah AG Reyes' office missed a filing deadline in the case for recognizing the same-sex marriages legally performed in Utah during the window (allowed, remember, because of another incompetent lapse by the AG's office).

    For being so concerned about "protecting" the couples, Reyes' office seems to be treating these cases in an insultingly cavalier fashion, using every tactic to delay resolution. Their response to the lapse was effectively "No biggie, it won't change anything." I wish the courts would stop being so tolerant when the state shows a pattern of negligence. But "gay means stay" has an apparent corollary: "gay means delay ok."

  • 26. brandall  |  June 30, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    SLC Tribune early today had an additional sentence that was omitted from the above article. If true, it implies it was a clerical error with the attachments to the filing. It does not affect the overall dates set by the court.

    "Missy Larsen, said Monday there were merely some attachments missing from the attorney general’s filing."

  • 27. Ragavendran  |  June 30, 2014 at 7:16 pm

    Here's the list of "deficiencies":

  • 28. Mike_Baltimore  |  June 30, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    In other words, a listing of several deficiencies. And some major. A law firm should know what documents to file, and when.

    I wish the courts started issuing contempt of court citations (monetary fine and/or jail time) in these types of cases. After all, could you or I skip a court case (without good reason) and not get hit immediately with a contempt of court citation? Or the attorneys (or their staff) skip submission of required documents, and get away with it with just an 'ooops'?

  • 29. brandall  |  July 1, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Closing the loop on this thread: "Utah files documents missing from same-sex marriage appeal"

  • 30. Steve  |  July 1, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    At least the first time he an excuse because he just took over the job under somewhat unusual circumstances and had plenty of other stuff to deal with and catch up on.

  • 31. eizverson22  |  July 1, 2014 at 12:54 am

    Come on, come on, soon heard the good news.<img src=>

  • 32. Sagesse  |  July 1, 2014 at 5:23 am

    From the wedding celebration, one year on, for Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo. Judge Walker attended.

    PHOTOS: The Prop. 8 Wedding Five Years in the Making [The Advocate]

  • 33. get rid of zits&hellip  |  July 1, 2014 at 6:10 am

    get rid of zits

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 34. RQO  |  July 1, 2014 at 6:38 am

    Colorado thoughts: I like scream4evers suggestion that the AG/Clerk deal include precluding the AG from appealing the district court's ruling in it s in favor of ME (and indications are that it will be). (The AG will not take this caveat.) Ragavendran is probably right that refusing the deal will be "messy", but I have 2 thoughts on that; one that ME opponents mostly (NJ, PA aside) never seem to shy from messy if it delays the inevitable, and this could be the AG's tactic of choice here, and two that I have NO idea just what sort of "opinion" is expected out of the Supreme Court. You can BET the AG figures it won't be a leap to declaring the SSM ban unconstitutional, even though it is time for a New Mexico solution here (all parties agreeing to petition the state Supreme Court for a quick final decision).
    If the Boulder County Clerk is stalling for time, it is to have the district court ruling on the two state cases – now combined – in hand. Wouldn't having both federal 10th Circuit and a state court decision make the AG's position infinitely more difficult? I half expect the Denver and maybe Larimer County Clerks to issue licenses once the ruling is out.
    On politics – this seems to be the retiring Republican AG's swan song. There is not much evidence either the D's or the R's want to make ME an issue for the fall elections, which are expected to be very close and may see a R resurgence. Everything depends on suburban independents, especially unmarried women, and ME is not their hot button like it is for the Evangelicals. Note the D governor ( pro-gay but up for election)) sent his gay lawyer to the district court hearing not to say that our constitutional ban is unconstitutional, but that it is merely "bad public policy".
    The county clerk may have begun this on her own, but you can bet her response is being coordinated with the D party and One Colorado, the lead GLBT rights group. The only reason Colorado is a purple state now is the conscious decision by Tim Gill, a gay software millionare, and 3 other big donors, a decade ago that the only way to advance gay rights was to get D's elected. There is now in place a complex group of interlocking committees involving all D constituencies coordinating – very quietly, never in the press – policy and MONEY. And it has worked. I strongly expect the next moves will be influenced as much by the realities of the Governor''s and US Senate races (D's defending and tight) as it will legal possibilities.

  • 35. scream4ever  |  July 1, 2014 at 7:57 am

    I personally think the state Supreme Court will refuse a stay, and the attorney general will simply drop it at that point. There are MANY factors pointing to the state supreme court refusing a request for a stay:

    -the 10th Circuit ruling

    -the Boulder County clerk taking the initiative to issue licenses herself

    -the fact that the state supreme court has a 5-2 Democratic appointment majority

  • 36. Indiana Marriage Equality&hellip  |  July 1, 2014 at 7:15 am

    […] Equality on Trial reports: […]

  • 37. JayJonson  |  July 1, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Breaking News: Seventh Circuit has just granted Lambda Legal's request to lift is stay on the recognition of the marriage of one Indiana couple, Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler.

    Today, the day after Lambda Legal filed papers with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court on an emergency basis to lift its stay to allow respect for the marriage of one couple, Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler, because Niki is battling Stage IV ovarian cancer, Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed papers again demanding that the Court deny respect to the Indiana couple’s marriage. Camilla Taylor, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, said: Attorney General Zoeller’s callous disregard for this family’s circumstances is heartless, cruel, and unbecoming of a public official charged with representing the interests of all Hoosiers. He is taking steps that no other attorney general anywhere in the country has in fighting to deny respect to the marriage of only one couple facing very significant health issues. Attorney General Greg Zoeller will not have the last word, justice will. This Indiana family is undergoing tremendous stress while they courageously fight Ms. Quasney’s stage four ovarian cancer. Their marriage doesn’t harm anyone in Indiana.

  • 38. DACiowan  |  July 1, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Our hopes are with you, Ms. Quasney.

  • 39. sfbob  |  July 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    Just to back up what Jay has posted, the court's (very brief) order is here:

  • 40. Ragavendran  |  July 1, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    Goodness, my faith in humanity is not lost. How else could anyone with a genuine soul who read their request rule?

    Now, will the state appeal to the Supreme Court? I remember them arguing tooth and nail in asking for a stay against the preliminary injunction requiring them to recognize this one couple's marriage not so long ago. And even earlier today, they filed a response in opposition to the request.

  • 41. Sagesse  |  July 1, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    The AG just looks callous and heartless. It will not wear well on him with the people of Indiana.

  • 42. dingomanusa  |  July 1, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    More on this… "The state has extensively researched this matter and sincerely wishes it found a provision within our state's statutes that would allow for some extraordinary relief or humanitarian exception to the rule of law that would grant what petitioners request," Zoeller said. "If this court can find an exception that would apply, this circumstance surely warrants its use." Spokeswoman Staci Schneider said the attorney general's office respects the court's ruling in this matter and would have no further comment at this time.

  • 43. Sagesse  |  July 1, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    The phrase 'pompous ass' pops to mind.

  • 44. Zack12  |  July 1, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    Do they not think other gay and lesbian couples aren't facing similar health issues?
    Even if they aren't, anything can happen. There is no reason for a stay at all IMO.

  • 45. BillinNO  |  July 1, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    I'm grinding my teeth waaaaaaiting on Virginia. Dammit Fourth Circuit, come on!

  • 46. sfbob  |  July 1, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Same here. Also on the Tenth Circuit. They managed to issue a decision on Kitchen vs Herbert so why is it taking more time to come to a conclusion with Bishop?

  • 47. SeattleRobin  |  July 1, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    Bishop is the one with the funky issues on who the proper party to sue is.

  • 48. BillinNO  |  July 1, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Do you guys think that in the event Bishop is tossed for some standing issue that Kitchen can still sort of be adopted as a ruling for the Circuit, at least insofar as that is how the Boulder Clerk is interpreting it?

  • 49. best weight loss pills&hellip  |  July 1, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    best weight loss pills

    Equality On TrialEquality On Trial »

  • 50. How GOP Governors Are Spl&hellip  |  July 14, 2014 at 4:34 am

    […] Pence said in February the issue of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states, but Indiana may be at the forefront of the national battle as the 7th Circuit appeals panel has fast-tracked the suit. […]

  • 51. Equality On TrialThis sum&hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:28 am

    […] same-sex marriage ban have been consolidated for briefing in the Seventh Circuit, and the case has been fast-tracked. Briefing had initially been scheduled to begin with the opening brief due July 15 and […]

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