Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Update in Alabama adoption case at the Supreme Court


Alabama state sealBuzzfeed reports:

The court-appointed representative of the children in V.L. and E.L.’s litigation weighed in at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking a stay of the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgment in order to give the children access to both of their mothers.

Writing that it is “beyond dispute” that the three children “are presently being harmed and that the harm will continue absent a stay,” the guardian ad litem, representing the children’s interests, argues that the current circumstances — the Alabama Supreme Court order holding that V.L.’s adoption of their children is void — “are antithetical to the children’s best interests and the reality that they have known their whole lives.”

The guardian ad litem, represented by lawyers with Morrison & Foerster LLP, also noted that it “intends to file a response in support of the certiorari petition” that was filed by V.L.

You can read the new filing here as posted by Buzzfeed.

There is still no word on V.L.’s own request for a stay of the lower court’s ruling. That request went to Justice Clarence Thomas in his capacity for Circuit Justice of the Eleventh Circuit, the area of the country that includes Alabama. He can enter a ruling on his own or ask the full Court to weigh in. One or more Justices could also call for a response from the opposing party.


  • 1. JayJonson  |  November 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

    Portugal's Parliament has approved laws allowing same-sex couples to legally adopt children and permitting lesbians to obtain medically assisted fertilization.

    Left-of-center parties used their outright parliamentary majority to ensure the bills passed Friday. The Socialist Party, Communist Party and Left Bloc had promised those measures during their campaigns for last month's general election.

    Parliament in 2013 approved a law allowing gay married couples to adopt their partners' children but rejected legislation granting gay couples the same adoption rights as heterosexuals.

  • 2. Christian0811  |  November 20, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Wonderful news! :))))

    I wonder how the discriminatory provisions escaped constitutional review, but I'm glad the parliament corrected this.

  • 3. Bruno71  |  November 20, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Has there been any court in Europe that has reviewed anti-gay marriage and adoption laws and reversed them, to date? That's so far been reserved for courts in the Americas.

  • 4. Christian0811  |  November 20, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    Slovenia's constitutional court rejected a discriminatory element in their civil union laws, also Slovenia's Supreme Court held that there was no ban on adoptions for same sex couples setting 'jurisprudence constance, Germany's court has done the same to its civil registration law over the years, austria's constitutional court rejected the adoption ban, the Portuguese constitutional court ruled on marriage in 2010 and there was a concurring opinion holding that marriage was required by the constitution, the French Constitutional Council rejected a 'conscience clause' for homophobic mayors, and another French court of Appeals held that the treaty with Morocco regarding marriages could not be applied to same sex nuptials, ECoHR ruled in 'Oliari' that marriage or civil unions has to be available to same sex couples and, in other cases, that sexuality isn't grounds for denying child custody.

    Not very impressive jurisprudence, but there's some positive case law.

  • 5. Bruno71  |  November 20, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    None of those you mentioned have reversed discriminatory laws against same-sex marriage (the Portuguese ruling, I assume, followed a review of the vote to enact marriage equality in Parliament). Others have touched on civil unions but that is still discriminatory. The only one that seemed to change anything was Austria's court rejecting the adoption ban. It's VERY unimpressive compared to the Americas. The courts in Europe have been unwilling to get ahead of the legislatures in Europe, for the most part.

  • 6. Christian0811  |  November 20, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    I understand all of that, in my original post I was remarking on the disappointing trend that these laws at the various constitutional courts survive in spite of the obvious irrationality of them.

    Although to the point of the Portuguese court, that following-decision prevents any legislative backslide which is comforting.

  • 7. Bruno71  |  November 21, 2015 at 10:33 am

    I can understand somewhat why the pan-European courts are hesitant to act. As much as I hate to admit it, California has more in common with Alabama than the UK does with Armenia. What surprises me more is the lack of action by the courts in supposedly liberal countries who have majorities in favor of marriage and adoption equality. There is definitely a more trepidatious environment at those courts.

  • 8. DrPatrick1  |  November 21, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    I can appreciate a Jurist's desire not to rule on a controversial topic, preferring to let the issue percolate longer. Unlike a legislator, a judge doesn't get to decide which cases to hear ( of course they do have to agree to accept a case, but cases come to them, like it or not, and no matter what they do, it means something, even if they decline to accept a case). They have a duty to judge the case fairly, not to delay justice because the timing is wrong!

  • 9. Christian0811  |  November 22, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    I agree, I think going to the ECoHR as early as 2010 was crazy. But even so I believe the judges had a duty to make the correct ruling after deeming the complaint admissible. Judges still have the obligation to rule fairly, not according to prejudice.

    Better that they drum up some lame excuse as to why they couldn't grant review than deliver a legally twisted ruling, such as the rulings we've seen in Kopf and elsewhere

  • 10. allan120102  |  November 22, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    The slovenian supreme court left me spechless, they didn´t even address ssm they should just should have ban the referendum from taking place, not sure how hard was to hand that decision, was so dissappoint .

  • 11. Olivia_Jordan  |  December 1, 2015 at 4:23 am

    I need to tell you that I relished my visit to your web site enormously and will definitely be calling back to look at it yet again some time soon, thank you once again Anne Trees.I want to say that I savored my visit to your web site tremendously and will definitely be calling back to check it yet again some time soon, thank you very much!

    Shooting games
    Action games
    funny games
    Sports games
    Shooting games

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