Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Mississippi marriage plaintiffs ask Fifth Circuit to fast-track case, hear arguments along with Texas and Louisiana cases

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Fifth Circuit Court of AppealsThe plaintiffs challenging Mississippi’s same-sex marriage ban have filed a request in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asking them to put the case on a fast track.

The appeals court had scheduled arguments in similar challenges from Louisiana and Texas on January 9, and the new request would add arguments in the Mississippi case on that date as well.

The plaintiffs challenging Louisiana’s ban asked the Supreme Court earlier this month to go ahead and decide that case before the appeals court does. The petition for review is still pending.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

27 Comments

  • 1. Alphazip  |  December 1, 2014 at 9:11 am

    Just watched Matt Baume's AFER video for today (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/marriage-news-watch-dec-1-2014/) and there's a major error. He stated that Michigan AG Bill Schuette (correctly pronounced Shootie, not Shooette) asked SCOTUS not to take up the DeBoer appeal. In fact, although Schuette supports the 6th Circuit's decision upholding the Michigan marriage ban, he also supports SCOTUS taking up the matter and making a nationwide ruling.

  • 2. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Indeed, that is a major error on his part.
    Schulette is a bigot but at least he isn't dragging his feet on this.

  • 3. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 1, 2014 at 10:31 am

    Although Schuette filed paperwork at SCOTUS, he did NOT say SCOTUS should not rule, but he DID say that SCOTUS should rule in a manner to let the voters have the final say.

    In effect, he was saying to SCOTUS to "butt out", but if SCOTUS must rule, rule in such a manner that any decision leads to a voter's 'final' decision, not a SCOTUS 'final' decision.

    In other words, a variation on the old refrain of 'the voters have decided, and their votes show they said no.'

  • 4. Alphazip  |  December 1, 2014 at 10:54 am

    That's not the way I read it. The title on Scribd. is "Michigan Response in support of Cert Petition." If Schuette was telling SCOTUS to "butt out", he would have opposed cert. Of course, Schuette wants a decision in favor of the ban, but he DOES want a decision. From the brief: "Given the importance of the issue—who decides important issues in our constitutional democracy— and the split among the circuits that allows the citizens of some States, but not others, to vote on the definition of marriage, Michigan does not oppose review by this Court. Instead, it asks this Court to affirm."

  • 5. sfbob  |  December 1, 2014 at 11:26 am

    Scheutte is looking for a definitive SCOTUS ruling on the right of citizens to vote on basic civil rights. That's his angle here as well as his focus; in a sense marriage equality is beside the point as far as he's concerned.

    I'm hoping the court will remind him and others who endorse his views (like Judges Sutton and Cook) that there is a reason why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights: to prevent a situation wherein the majority can vote away the rights of a minority.

    Schuette won his case on affirmative action because affirmative action is a means. He will doubtless misconstrue the favorable decision the court handed him as meaning that citizens can legitimately vote on any and all topics. I expect he will end up being disappointed.

  • 6. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 11:50 am

    I'm expecting they will be disappointed as well.
    After all, Breyer was one of the six yes votes in the other case and I seriously doubt he will do the same with gay marriage bans.
    As for Kennedy, let's fact it, other then the Boy Scouts, his history on gay rights has been on our side.
    If he had wanted a federalism ruling in Windsor, he would have ruled that way.
    But he didn't and the idea he is going to do a 180 on this is highly unlikely.
    We have five votes for our side, simple as that.
    If nothing else, Judge Straub in his DOMA dissent tried to use the same arguments Sutton and Cook did about the will of the people, public debate etc and Kennedy ignored it.
    I imagine he will do the same here.

  • 7. franklinsewell  |  December 1, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    So, EOT'ers, what's next for the Michigan case since Snyder, et. al., filed their brief in support of granting cert.?

  • 8. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Waiting on SCOTUS.

  • 9. guitaristbl  |  December 1, 2014 at 9:42 am

    A good idea most likely, not because the 5th is likely to rule in any positive way if it has the time to (unlikely), but because once SCOTUS rules and if it rules in favour of ME, the 5th, bound by SCOTUS decision, will issue a ruling that will be more easily applied to all states in the circuit, than having an appeal still in the middle of briefing etc.
    Btw when is the 5th going to grant the stay to the Mississippi case ? I think Judge Reeves's ruling comes into effect on Thursday..

  • 10. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 9:57 am

    I hope cert is granted soon.
    The 11th circuit is a crap shoot and there is no chance we will get a favorable ruling from the 5th or 8th circuits, as the Republicans appointed by St. Ronnie and George Sr were bad enough.
    The ones appointed by W are neocons on steroids.

  • 11. jdw_karasu  |  December 1, 2014 at 10:30 am

    The 11th is 8-3 Dem:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_

    It was 7-5 when Obama took over, so this is a total flip job with 4 GOP judges retiring/going Sr. There hasn't been a nomination to replace Dubina once he retired more than a year ago, or this would be an 9-3 Dem circuit.

    There's a high % of GOP Sr. Judges (6-2), but even if one or more got on the initial panel, an en banc is bullet proof there.

    The only sad thing is that they likely won't have a ruling down before SCOTUS takes up one of the cases from the 6th.

  • 12. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Yes but some of those "Dems" like Frank Hull and Julie Carnes are really Republicans that Clinton and Obama were forced to nominate because those were the onlys that could get through.
    There aren't that many liberal Democrats on the 11th, which is why I think our side waited for so long.

  • 13. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 1, 2014 at 11:48 am

    And then there is Richard Posner, appointed by Ronnie Ray-Gun.

    Didn't he vote to deny ME, just like ALL Ray-Gun, G.W. Bush and shrub appointees? And NO judge appointed by President Obama tried to slow-walk ME? I guess the judge in South Carolina (appointed by President Obama) was just making sure she got things correct, correct?

    This is why I contend that looking at a person's political philosophy is important, but it is NOT the only thing to look at. I disagree with almost all decisions made by Justice Kennedy, but every once in a while, I agree with him. Most of those times I agree with him are because he has sided with the rights of homosexuals and ME. Just as I support my Congressman (Elijah Cummings), I don't always agree with every position he takes, just the vast majority of them.

  • 14. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    I agree but the reality is most of the George W appointees have been among the most conservative jurists to ever serve on the courts.
    All I know is the personal history of many of these judges makes it nil they will rule in our favor.

  • 15. jdw_karasu  |  December 1, 2014 at 11:55 am

    I'm not terribly worried about Carnes.

    Agreed on Hull, and Marcus is another like that. Though Marcus did side with the Dems on ACA, while Hull went in the other direction.

    My point is that 8-3 has margin to work with in an en banc: we can lose Hull and still get there.

  • 16. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    Let's just hope whatever panel we get, William Pryor isn't on it.
    He cites very homophobic Judge Roy Moore of Alabama as one of his heros.
    He will be a no vote.

  • 17. jdw_karasu  |  December 1, 2014 at 10:33 am

    The attempt to get Mississippi in with the TX & LA case isn't a surprise. Best case would be:

    * 5th agrees
    * because of the Holidays, 5th pushes back the briefing schedule a few weeks

    The longer we can drag out the process in the 5th, the better. I'd just as soon see the 5th cases stayed by SCOTUS taking up something from the 6th, and leaving the 6th hanging on its own as the only circuit to rule for the Wrong Side.

  • 18. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 10:37 am

    I feel the same way.
    If we want to see what female bigots look like other then Judge Cook, Judge Edith Jones, Edith Clement, Catherina Hayes and Priscilla Owens will be more then happy to share their options with us unlike Judge Cook who let her concurence on Sutton's option do the talking.
    And the men like Leslie Southwick and Emilio Garza are just as bad.

  • 19. DrBriCA  |  December 1, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Off topic: South Carolina wants to put the 4th Circuit appeal on hold and jump straight to SCOTUS to appeal their marriage equality rulings. It'd be wonderful if SCOTUS were to promptly deny cert on this petition, given how they denied cert already for Bostic, which is now precedent in the circuit.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/south-carolina-

  • 20. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Doesn't surprise me they're taking this step.
    This isn't the court Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond shaped, it's Obama's court now and there is no chance in heck a negative ruling will come out of it.
    Elections matter and the 4th is the best example of that.

  • 21. RnL2008  |  December 1, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    SCOTUS is NOT going to do ANYTHING regarding appeals from the 4th Circuit….they have ALREADY denied cert to those territories and all South Carolina is going to accomplish is NOTHING!!!

  • 22. StraightDave  |  December 1, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    I hope SCOTUS just ignores the whole thing until June and lets the petition sit in the corner. Let SC sweat it out, since no one else is affected. Although, on second thought, maybe a quick smack-down is needed to prevent any Kansas-style disobedience.

  • 23. sfbob  |  December 1, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Surely a quick smackdown would be appropriate. Fourth Circuit decision is binding within that circuit. SCOTUS refused to grant cert on that decision. District court(s) in SC have ruled consistently with that decision. There is no conflict within the circuit itself and therefore no reason for SCOTUS to hear the case.

  • 24. RnL2008  |  December 1, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    I just don't see SCOTUS staying the process just because the AG of SC DOESN'T want to accept the ruling from the 4th or for that matter the denial from SCOTUS…..seems a smack down should happen!!!

  • 25. Zack12  |  December 1, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    I was just reading up on the 4th circuit.
    It truly is amazing how Obama was able to turn that far right hell hole into a moderate court that gave us marriage equality, it truly is.

  • 26. Mike_Baltimore  |  December 2, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Since I've lived in the 4CA for more than four decades now, I have a good feel for how the 4CA used to operate and how it does now.

    Guess why shrub chose the 4CA courts for the preliminary trials of the Gitmo prisoners? He knew whatever decision he wanted, he'd get it at the Appeals Court level, and he was confident that SCOTUS would not overturn the 4CA.

    The attitude of the 4CA did not change much (CONservative to ultra-CONservative) from the time I first became acquainted with it until after President Obama had the opportunity to make changes in its membership.

  • 27. NorthernAspect  |  December 2, 2014 at 10:39 pm

    Can someone please explain why some federal courts have issued Preliminary Injunctions and some federal courts have issued Permanent Injunctions? It's seems like the analysis for both types of summary judgments are the same, and the length of time for deliberation is the same?

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