Equality On Trial

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling by Justice Kennedy in United States v. Windsor, strikes down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional under equal protection principles in the Fifth Amendment.

The Supreme Court holds in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the proponents of Prop 8, ProtectMarriage, had no standing to appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in U.S. v. Windsor, the case challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies married same-sex couples from accessing federal marital benefits. The hearing is split into two sections: a 50-minute discussion of questions of standing and jurisdiction, and a one hour discussion of the law’s merits.

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s marriage equality ban.

Three same-sex couples file a lawsuit in a Utah district court challenging the state’s 2004 constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the National Center for Lesbian Rights file a lawsuit in a New Mexico state court on behalf of two lesbian couples alleging that New Mexico’s refusal to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the state’s constitution.

All parties in the Windsor challenge to Section 3 of DOMA file their final briefs with the Supreme Court. One brief, by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group defending DOMA’s constitutionality, addresses the merits of the case. The other briefs, filed by BLAG, the Justice Department, Edie Windsor and a court-appointed outside attorney, address the issues of BLAG’s standing to appeal and whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

The proponents of Proposition 8 file their final Supreme Court brief in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, just one week before oral arguments are scheduled at the Supreme Court. The proponents’ filing comes in response to the brief filed against Prop 8’s constitutionality by the plaintiffs challenging the law.

The Solicitor General files a brief on behalf of the Obama administration with the Supreme Court arguing that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

On the same day that it files an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the Solicitor General also submits a request to take part in oral argument before the Court. In his motion, the Solicitor General writes that “participation in oral argument by the United States will provide the Court with the government’s unique perspective on the question presented” and asks for 10 minutes of argument time.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) files a friend of the court brief in both the Windsor DOMA case and the Prop 8 case arguing that children do just as well when raised by same-sex parents as they do when raised by opposite-sex parents.

More than 100 prominent Republicans sign a Supreme Court brief in the Prop 8 case arguing that the California constitutional amendment violates the U.S. Constitution and that marriage equality should be a nationwide, constitutional right.

The Solicitor General files a request with the Supreme Court in the Windsor DOMA challenge, joined by all the parties to the case, asking the Court to allow for 125 minutes of oral argument time in the case as opposed to the usual 60 minutes.

Edith Windsor, the original plaintiff in the DOMA challenge U.S. v. Windsor, files a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that DOMA’s Section 3 is unconstitutional.  In the brief, Windsor’s lawyers argue that “DOMA’s discriminatory treatment of married gay couples violates Ms. Windsor’s right to the equal protections of the laws as guaranteed by the […]

The U.S. Department of Justice files a brief on the merits in the U.S. v. Windsor case arguing that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In its brief, the DOJ argues that laws pertaining to gays and lesbians should be considered by courts using the more searching heightened scrutiny standard, reflecting a February 2011 determination by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to that effect.

The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 file a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the law violates both the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples in California, and that it and all such marriage equality bans across the U.S. should be declared unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court distributes a petition filed by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage asking for review of the district court decision in the Sevcik case and schedules the case to be considered during the Court’s March 15 conference.

Judge Sophia Hall of the Cook County Circuit Court denies a motion by the Thomas More Society for a stay of proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Supreme Court’s consideration of two gay rights cases, the DOMA challenge U.S. v. Windsor and the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.

The outgoing county clerk of Oakland County, Michigan, Bill Bullard, files a request with the district court hearing the DeBoer challenge to the state’s marriage equality ban asking to withdraw a motion to dismiss the case in which he defended the ban’s constitutionality.

Lambda Legal, representing the plaintiffs in the Sevcik case challenging Nevada’s marriage laws, file a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that it should not review the district court’s ruling upholding Nevada’s refusal to grant marriages to same-sex couples.

Victoria C. Jackson, the outside attorney appointed by the Supreme Court to address the questions of standing in the Windsor v. USA DOMA case, files a brief arguing that BLAG does not have standing to defend DOMA in court and that the Supreme Court itself has no jurisdiction to hear the case because the Justice Department agrees with the lower courts’ rulings striking down DOMA as unconstitutional.

The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) files a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that DOMA is constitutional and that the Court should uphold the law.

The proponents of Prop 8 file their opening brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the California constitutional amendment which repealed marriage equality in the state does not violate the U.S. Constitution and should be upheld.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approves a request to place the Sevcik and Jackson cases challenging the marriage laws of Nevada and Hawaii, respectively, on a parallel schedule for briefing and oral argument.

The Supreme Court announces its March 2013 oral arguments calendar, which includes consideration of the Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) on March 26 and the DOMA case (United States v. Windsor) on March 27.

Lambda Legal and the plaintiffs in the Sevcik v. Sandoval case challenging Nevada’s marriage laws file a brief with the Ninth Circuit responding to Hawaii Family Forum’s opposition to a parallel briefing schedule for Sevcik and the Hawaii marriage equality case Jackson v. Abercrombie.

The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the anti-gay group permitted to intervene in defense of Nevada’s marriage laws in the Sevcik marriage equality case, files a brief opposing a motion to place the case and another marriage equality challenge out of Hawaii on a parallel schedule at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court releases an order outlining the briefing schedule in the Windsor v. USA case challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hawaii Family Forum, the defendant-intervenors defending Hawaii’s marriage laws in the marriage equality challenge Jackson v. Abercrombie, file a motion with the Ninth Circuit asking the court to put the case on hold pending the Supreme Court’s final decision on the constitutionality of Prop 8.

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie files a brief with the Ninth Circuit supporting the request made by Lambda Legal, the group spearheading the Sevcik marriage equality challenge in Nevada, to place that case and a marriage equality case out of Hawaii called Jackson on a parallel schedule at the circuit court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues an order staying proceedings in the California DOMA case Golinski v. OPM pending a final decision by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of DOMA in the Windsor v. USA case.

The Supreme Court appoints Vicki Jackson, a Harvard Law School professor, to argue in the Windsor case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA that neither the U.S. Justice Department (which refuses to defend the law) nor the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (which House Republicans have tasked with defending the statute) have standing to pursue the appeal with the high court.

The plaintiffs in the Nevada marriage equality case Sevcik v. Sandoval petition the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to schedule their appeal with the a similar one out of a Hawaii district court in the Jackson v. Abercrombie case.

In a late afternoon order, the U.S. Supreme Court announces that it will take up the Prop 8 case and the Windsor challenge to DOMA and issue rulings on the two laws’ constitutionality by the end of its 2013 session.

The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the Nevada anti-gay group behind Nevada’s marriage equality ban, asks the Supreme Court to review the district court decision upholding the ban before the completion of an appeal at the Ninth Circuit.

Lambda Legal files an appeal of the district court decision in the Sevcik case upholding Nevada’s marriage equality ban with the Ninth Circuit.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sophia Hall denies the motions to intervene filed in the Darby/Lazaro case by the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) and two churches, the Church of Christian Liberty and Grace-Gospel Fellowship.

A federal district court judge in Nevada issues a ruling in the Sevcik v. Sandoval case upholding the state’s two-tier marriage laws, under which opposite-sex couples may marry but same-sex couples may only enter into domestic partnership laws. In his ruling, Judge Robert Jones rejects the plaintiffs’ claim that Nevada’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples violates their equal protection rights.

The Second Circuit grants a motion filed by the Obama Administration seeking to suspend the briefing schedule in the Pedersen v. OPM case challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act pending possible Supreme Court review of the case.

The Ninth Circuit grants a stay in Jackson until December 17, 2012 pending Supreme Court action in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

A 3-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a district court ruling striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in the Windsor case. Significantly, the panel’s decision is the first Second Circuit ruling to hold that laws pertaining to gays and lesbians should be considered under more searching heightened scrutiny level of review.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sophia Hall hears oral arguments regarding the Illinois Family Institute’s request to intervene in the Lazaro/Darby suit.

A 3-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan hears oral arguments in the appeal of a district court ruling striking down DOMA and awarding a tax refund to Edie Windsor.

BLAG appeals the district court decision striking down DOMA in the Pedersen case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court makes no announcement following its September 24 conference regarding whether or not it will hear the legal challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA or Proposition 8. The cases are later scheduled for other conferences throughout the fall, after which the Court also makes no announcement.

In an unexpected move, Judge Robert Jones cancels the oral arguments in the Sevcik case that he had previously scheduled for November 26. In his order, Judge Jones writes that “[t]he court will issue a written order on the pleadings.”

The Justice Department files its own petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, but asks the Court to put the petition on hold pending its consideration of two other certiorari petitions in the DOMA cases of Gill/Massachusetts and Golinski.

The Justice Department files a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, but asks the Court to put the petition on hold pending its consideration of two other certiorari petitions in the DOMA cases of Gill/Massachusetts and Golinski.

On the same day, Lambda Legal and the Sevcik plaintiffs file a motion for summary judgment with the district court, as do Governor Brian Sandoval and the other governmental defendants. In their briefs, the two sides ask Judge Jones to rule in the case in their favor without taking the suit to the trial phase.

Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer file an amended complaint in a Michigan district court arguing that the state’s marriage amendment, which limits marriage to heterosexual couples, violates gay and lesbian Michiganders’ equal protection and due process laws.

Natasha Jackson, Janin Kleid and Gary Bradley, the plaintiffs in the Jackson case, appeal Judge Kay’s decision upholding Hawaii’s marriage laws to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On the same day, Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie also appeals the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The Supreme Court announces on its website that the Prop 8 case (now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry after Prop 8 proponent Dennis Hollingsworth) has been scheduled for a conference on September 24 at which the Court will consider whether or not to take up the appeal.

The Supreme Court announces on its website that the Windsor case has been scheduled for a conference on September 24 at which the Court will consider whether or not to take up the case.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group files a brief with the Supreme Court opposing the Justice Department’s request that the high court hear the case before the Ninth Circuit.

District Court Judge Bernard Friedman, a George W. Bush appointee, invites a gay couple whose adoption suit he is hearing to amend their lawsuit to challenge Michigan’s constitutional ban on marriages for gay and lesbian couples. Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer had been before the court seeking to adopt their three children as a couple, since Michigan law only allows each child to be adopted by one of the women.

Without comment, the Second Circuit denies GLAD’s request for an expedited appeal in the Pedersen case.

The Second Circuit issues a one-sentence order rejecting BLAG’s request that it postpone oral arguments in the Windsor case until the Supreme Court decides whether or not it will consider the case on appeal.

GLAD and the plaintiffs in the Pedersen case file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking it to take up the Connecticut district court ruling striking down DOMA before it is reviewed by the Second Circuit.

GLAD files a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asking it to expedite its consideration of the Pedersen district court ruling striking down DOMA.

The Justice Department files an appeal with the Second Circuit of Judge Bryant’s opinion striking down DOMA.

BLAG files a brief with the Second Circuit, asking it to postpone oral arguments in Windsor until the Supreme Court either approves or denies Edie Windsor’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

District Court Judge Robert Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, hears arguments in Las Vegas in a preliminary hearing for the Sevcik v. Sandoval case. Two motions are considered during the hearing, one by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage seeking to intervene in defense of Nevada’s marriage laws and another by Governor Brian Sandoval seeking to dismiss the suit.

Judge Alan Kay rules that Hawaii’s marriage laws, which prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, are constitutional, rejecting a lesbian couple’s claim that the laws violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights. In a 120-page opinion, Judge Kay writes that “Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” and says that “[i]f the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature of the people through a constitutional amendment.”

GLAD, representing the plaintiffs in the Gill case, files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court asking it to take up the combined Gill and Massachusetts case.

Connecticut District Court Judge Vanessa Bryant issues a ruling striking down DOMA, declaring there is “no conceivable rational basis” for the law and that it thus violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection principles.

Prop 8’s proponents file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking the high court to overturn the lower courts’ rulings invalidating Prop 8.

The Ninth Circuit cancels oral argument in the Golinski case pending the results of a request for Supreme Court review brought by the Justice Department.

Judge Alan Kay hears oral arguments at a preliminary hearing in Honolulu in the Jackson case.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in the combined Gill and Massachusetts case.

Lambda Legal and Karen Golinski file a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Justice Department’s argument that the high court should hear the case before it is decided in the Ninth Circuit.

The ACLU files a petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of Edie Windsor asking for review of her case against DOMA before it is decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Illinois Family Institute, a Carol Stream, Illinois-based conservative organization, files a motion in the Lazaro/Darby lawsuit seeking to intervene to defend Illinois’s marriage laws.

Judge Vanessa Bryant, a George W. Bush appointee, denies BLAG’s request for a stay of proceedings in the Pedersen case.

The Justice Department files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to bypass the circuit court appeal level in the Golinski case.

The Justice Department files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in the combined Gill and Massachusetts case.

The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based conservative Christian legal organization, files a brief with the county court seeking to intervene in defense of Illinois’s marriage laws.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which is defending DOMA on behalf of the House of Representatives, files a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in the combined Gill and Massachusetts case.

Two Illinois county clerks file a motion in the combined Lazaro/Darby case requesting to intervene in defense of the state’s civil unions law.

GLAD and the plaintiffs in the Pedersen case file a brief with the Connecticut district court opposing BLAG’s motion asking the court to stay all proceedings in the case pending higher appellate rulings on the constitutionality of DOMA.

At a hearing in Chicago, Judge Moshe Jacobius, Presiding Judge of the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, agrees to combine the two marriage equality lawsuits that the court is hearing (Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr, filed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU, respectively).

BLAG files a motion with the Pedersen district court, asking the court to stay any further proceedings in the case pending the resolution of the New York Windsor case challenging DOMA.

On the same day, both parties to the Jackson case file motions with the court asking Judge Kay to rule in their favor without proceeding to a full trial.

The Department of Justice files its own appeal of the Windsor decision with the Second Circuit, asking it to review the district court decision declaring DOMA unconstitutional.

Anita Alvarez, the Cook County State’s Attorney, files briefs in the Darby and Lazaro lawsuits arguing that the state’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

Edie Windsor’s attorneys files a request with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to put the appeal of her case on an expedited schedule.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group files an appeal asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to review the decision of the district court ruling in the Windsor case.

Judge Barbara Jones, a Bill Clinton appointee, rules in Edie Windsor’s favor and strikes down DOMA as unconstitutional, ruling that Windsor should be refunded over $363,000 in estate taxes that the New Yorker paid upon the death of her wife.

The Ninth Circuit denies the proponents’ request to rehear the Prop 8 case, making the 3-judge panel’s opinion the last word on the matter at the circuit court level.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan files court briefs in both Darby and Lazaro seeking to intervene in the lawsuits on the side of the plaintiffs, announcing that she believes Illinois’s civil unions law violates the equal protection rights of the state’s gay and lesbian couples.

In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Tauro’s ruling, holding that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois each file a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, contending that Illinois’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the equal protection and due process rights of those couples under the state’s constitution. The Lambda Legal lawsuit is called Darby v. Orr and the ACLU lawsuit is called Lazaro v. Orr.

The Ninth Circuit denies the Justice Department’s request for an initial hearing en banc in the Golinski case.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a Republican, files a motion in district court seeking to dismiss the Sevcik case.

The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, a Nevada non-profit that opposes marriage equality, files a motion with the district court seeking to intervene in defense of the state’s marriage laws.

District Court Judge Alan Kay rules that the Hawaii Family Forum can defend the state’s marriage laws in court.

The Ninth Circuit issues an order expediting the appeal of the Golinski decision striking down DOMA.

Lambda Legal files a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada challenging the state’s marriage laws and arguing that its denial of equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples violates their equal protection rights.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments in the companion cases of Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS, in which DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional by a district court judge.

The Justice Department files a brief with the Ninth Circuit asking for an initial en banc hearing of the Golinski case rather than a hearing by a 3-judge panel.  An en banc hearing is usually requested after an appellate court has ruled, although this intermediate step between the appellate court’s customary 3-judge panel and the […]

The Office of Personnel Management sends a letter to Blue Cross/Blue Shield instructing the insurance company to enroll Karen Golinski’s wife on her plan.

The Hawaii Family Forum, a social conservative advocacy group, files a motion in district court seeking to defend Hawaii’s marriage laws.

BLAG files an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, asking it to review Judge Jeffrey White’s ruling in the Golinski case striking down Section 3 of DOMA as an equal protection violation.

Judge Jeffrey White, a Bush appointee of the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California, issues an opinion declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional using a heightened scrutiny test.

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie announces that he will not defend Hawaii’s ban on marriages for gay and lesbian couples in district court.

Instead of appealing the 3-judge panel’s ruling directly to the Supreme Court, the proponents of Prop 8 file a motion with the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc—essentially, a second level of appellate review that would replace the 3-judge decision and reconsider Judge Walker’s ruling anew.

The 3-judge Ninth Circuit panel issues a multi-faceted ruling on the Proposition 8 case, rejecting the argument to vacate Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop 8, granting the proponents standing to appeal, and holding that Walker was correct in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit overturns Judge Ware’s decision to release the district court recordings of the Prop 8 trial, issuing an order that they remain under seal.

District Court Judge Jeffrey White hears oral arguments in San Francisco in the case of Golinski v. OPM, challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments on the motion to dismiss Judge Walker’s ruling, which had been denied by District Court Judge James Ware, who took over the case upon Judge Walker’s retirement.

A Honolulu lesbian couple files a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were refused a marriage license by the state’s health department.

The California Supreme Court rules that Prop 8’s proponents do have standing under California law to defend the law in court.

The Ninth Circuit issues its own stay pending appeal on Judge Ware’s decision to release the Prop 8 trial recordings.

The Ninth Circuit issues an order extending Judge Ware’s stay on his decision to release the Prop 8 trial recordings.

The Prop 8 proponents appeal Judge Ware’s order to release the trial recordings to the Ninth Circuit, seeking to keep them from being released.

Judge Ware grants the plaintiffs’ motion to unseal the recordings of the Prop 8 trial, and places a temporary stay on the ruling that will expire on September 30.

The California Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the issue of whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing under California law to defend the statute in lieu of the official government defendants, who declined to defend the statute.

On a tie vote, the First Circuit denies the request for initial en banc review in the Gill case.

The U.S. Justice Department files a brief with the district court in Edie Windsor’s case, arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional and the court should rule in Windsor’s favor.

BLAG files a motion opposing the Pedersen plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment and asking the Connecticut district court hearing the challenge to dismiss the case.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives files a motion opposing the ACLU’s request for summary judgment and requesting that her lawsuit be dismissed by the district court.

GLAD files for summary judgment in the Pedersen case, asking the district court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs without a full trial.

On the same day, the Justice Department files a strongly worded brief arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional and l, representing Karen Golinski, files for summary judgment in her case against DOMA in district court.

In San Francisco, Judge Ware hears oral arguments on the request to release the Prop 8 trial recordings to the public.

The ACLU files a motion with the district court for summary judgment on behalf of Edie Windsor, requesting that Judge Barbara Jones hear oral arguments and declare DOMA unconstitutional without a full trial.

The plaintiffs in the companion cases of Gill and Massachusetts file a request with the First Circuit asking for an initial hearing of the case en banc.

Judge Ware denies the proponents’ motion to vacate Judge Walker’s ruling on the basis of his sexuality.

Judge James Ware hears oral arguments in San Francisco over the motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision, and announces that he will issue a ruling on the matter shortly.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives files a brief in district court seeking to intervene in the Golinski suit in defense of DOMA.

On the heels of the Justice Department’s decision not to defend DOMA in court, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S House of Representatives files a motion with the First Circuit seeking to intervene in the case in defense of DOMA.

On April 6, 2011, two months after his retirement from the bench, Judge Vaughn Walker tells a group of reporters that he is gay and in a long-term relationship, adding that he never considered recusing himself from the case because of his sexuality. Later that month, on April 25, the Prop 8 proponents file a motion in district court with Judge James Ware, who took over the case after Judge Walker’s retirement, seeking to vacate Walker’s decision on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

AFER’s Ted Olson and David Boies file a motion with the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs arguing that the recordings of the Prop 8 trial at district court should be treated as public records and released.

Lambda Legal and Karen Golinski file an amended brief in district court, challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act by arguing that it discriminates against her “as a lesbian married to someone of the same sex.”

The proponents of Prop 8 file a request asking the Ninth Circuit to order that Judge Vaughn Walker return his videotapes of the Prop 8 trial.

District Court Judge Jeffrey White, a George W. Bush appointee, dismisses Karen Golinski’s suit, but invites her to file an amended complaint by April 15, 2011 challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.

In a dramatic development, the Obama administration announces that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. In a letter addressed to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder writes that President Obama has determined that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Following Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Justice Department will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, Judge Jeffrey White asks the government how to proceed with the Golinski case.

The California Supreme Court announces that it will accept the question from the Ninth Circuit regarding the standing of the proponents of Prop 8 under state law.

The Department of Justice files its opening brief in the appeals of Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS, two companion decisions striking down Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.

Postponing any decision of the Prop 8 case on the merits, the 3-judge Ninth Circuit panel certifies a question to the California Supreme Court asking whether the proponents of Prop 8 have standing under state law to defend the ballot measure in court.

A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit hears arguments in San Francisco regarding the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision striking down Prop 8.

Just one day after the proponents’ motion arguing that he should recuse himself, Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt announces that he will not remove himself from the panel considering the appeal of Prop 8.

ProtectMarriage.com, the proponents of Proposition 8, file a motion with the Ninth Circuit seeking to remove Judge Stephen Reinhardt from the 3-judge panel that will hear the appeal of the district court decision striking down Prop 8.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) files suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Edie Windsor.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) files a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of seven citizens of Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, arguing that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice files notices of appeal in both the Gill and Massachusetts cases with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn Judge Tauro’s decision striking down DOMA as unconstitutional.

Judge Tauro issues his judgment in the Gill case, holding DOMA unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. He also stays his judgment pending appeal upon a request for a stay from the defendants.

The Ninth Circuit issues its own stay on Judge Walker’s ruling, which supersedes his temporary stay.

Judge Walker orders his clerk to lift the stay on his ruling on the evening of August 18, 2010, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples in California to marry.

The proponents of Prop 8 file an appeal of Judge Walker’s decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as they had promised to do when the decision was handed down.

In a wide-ranging, powerful decision, Judge Vaughn Walker declares Proposition 8 unconstitutional, arguing that it violates gay couples’ equal protection rights as well as their due process rights to a fundamental right to marry.

Judge Joseph Tauro hands down two rulings striking down DOMA as unconstitutional, one for Gill and one for Massachusetts.

In San Francisco, Judge Vaughn Walker hears closing arguments in the Prop 8 trial.

Oral arguments are heard in Boston by Judge Joseph Tauro in the Massachusetts case.

Oral arguments are heard in Boston by District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, a Nixon appointee, in the Gill case.

Lambda Legal files a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of Karen Golinski, arguing that the denial of benefits to Golinski represents unconstitutional discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

In a split 5-4 decision, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court votes to indefinitely stay Judge Walker’s decision to broadcast the Prop 8 trial to the public.

At a hearing in district court regarding the broadcast of the Prop 8 case, Walker announces that his request for public comments on the issue of televising the trial has received 138,574 responses in favor and only 32 opposed.

The Supreme Court temporarily stays Judge Walker’s decision to publicly broadcast the Prop 8 trial, postponing a long-term decision until after it hears arguments about the possible impacts such a broadcast could have on the trial.

Over the course of two and a half weeks, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presides over the Prop 8 trial in district court in San Francisco.

Judge Vaughn Walker rules that the Prop 8 trial will be televised to the public, making it the first federal trial in California to be broadcast.

As before, OPM announces it will disregard Judge Kozinski’s order regarding health insurance for Karen Golinski’s wife because of DOMA.

Imperial County, the county’s Board of Supervisors and Isabel Vargas, the county’s Deputy Clerk/Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriages, file a motion asking the court to let them intervene in the case and defend Prop 8.

As he did in January 2009, Chief Judge Kozinski orders OPM to allow Cunningham to cover her wife under her health insurance plan, and grants her back pay compensation.

GLAD files a motion with the district court requesting summary judgment in the Gill case—that is, a decision made on the merits of the case without going to a full trial.

In an order, Judge Walker issues a ruling on the various motions to intervene in the Prop 8 case and issues a schedule for the trial to take place in early 2010.

The City and County of San Francisco files a brief with the court requesting to intervene in the case as a plaintiff against Prop 8.

Our Family Coalition, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) file a motion with the court asking to intervene in the case against Proposition 8.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts files a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts arguing that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies rights and protections to the 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have married since the state introduced marriage equality in 2004.

Judge Walker holds a pretrial hearing on the Prop 8 case in San Francisco.

Judge Vaughn Walker rules that the Prop 8 proponents have demonstrated their right to intervene in defense of Prop 8 in court, and allows them to do so.

The Campaign for California Families files a motion with the court requesting to intervene in the defense of Prop 8.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, tells the court he will remain neutral in the case against Prop 8 and will not defend the law in court.

Jerry Brown, California’s attorney general, files a brief with the district court arguing that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and telling the court he will not defend the statute on these grounds.

ProtectMarriage.com — Yes on 8, the official ballot proponents of Proposition 8, ask the district court to allow them to intervene in the legal defense of the statute.

AFER and the plaintiffs challenging Prop 8 file a motion with the district court for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the law’s enforcement.  The plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed in their challenge claiming that Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses since it discriminates against gays and lesbians […]

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), a nonprofit organization set up specifically to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8, files a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of two couples, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, of Alameda, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, of Burbank.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) files a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts arguing that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which holds that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” is unconstitutional.

The Office of Personnel Management, the administration which oversees the management of the civil service, announces that it will ignore Kozinski’s ruling and instructs Blue Cross not to provide health insurance to Golinski’s wife.

Acting in his administrative capacity as the head of the Ninth Circuit, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski orders Golinski’s health insurance company, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, to cover Amy Cunninghis on Golinski’s plan.

After Golinski’s request for health insurance coverage for her wife is rejected, she and Lambda Legal file a complaint with the Ninth Circuit’s Employment Dispute Resolution Plan alleging that the denial of benefits was discriminatory and unlawful.

Karen Golinski, an employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, attempts to enroll her wife, Amy Cunninghis, in her employer-provided health insurance plan.