Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Pedersen Plaintiffs Oppose Stay

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.  In their filing, the plaintiffs argue that the House’s stay motion is really a request asking the court “not to render a decision on the pending dispositive motions.”

The plaintiffs point out that Supreme Court precedent recognizes that a stay of proceedings is an “extraordinary remedy” because plaintiffs have a right to have their cases “resolved without undue delay.”  BLAG’s stay request, they argue, would be just such an ‘undue delay,’ since the Windsor appeal could take several months (and could proceed to an en banc rehearing phase) and any Supreme Court review in the Gill/Massachusetts case would also take time.

Because the case has already been fully briefed, the proper course for the Pedersen court, GLAD argues, would be to issue a decision and then stay that ruling pending an appeal in Windsor, rather than not issuing any ruling.

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