BREAKING: No Standing of Plaintiffs in Cal Prop 8 case.

[elleng]

Source: msnbc

so lower court decision stands, marriages OK in the region covered, that is, Cal, which was covered by Prop 8.

No link yet.

[closeupready]

1. The correct ruling. It's a good day!

K&R

[Warpy]

26. Well, the best we could have expected from this court.

I was surprised they decided to hear that one, at all. They could have simply let the lower court ruling stand. My best guess is that they pored over that ruling hoping there was a way out, to declare Prop 8 valid. There wasn't.

I read the lower court decision. It was not only nailed down tight, it was delivered with a rainbow ribbon in it so no one could possibly mistake it for an amateur job.

[truebrit71]

2. Not as far reaching as other decisions handed down by this activist bench lately...

...but a whole lot better than agreeing with Prop 8...

All in all, a pretty good day...

[BP2]

3. Not entirely

But only in Cali and 10 other states

[elleng]

7. Right; will clarify, Thx

[premium]

4. More good news for equal rights/gay marriage.

We're 2 for 2 today. Now, on to the rest of the holdout states and get gay marriage laws passed and and signed.

[rurallib]

5. What "no standing" decision may mean

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=158053

[Richardo]

6. *kick*

Thanks elleng!

[elleng]

10. Hey, Richardo!

[mindwalker_i]

8. Allow me to say

Suck it, religious bigots! And I'm straight.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Lousy ruling which will hurt liberal groups who want to defend liberal ballot measures.

Suppose an animal-rights group gets a ballot-measure passed that pigs need to be given enough space to turn around.

The pork industry argues that the ballot-measure is invalid, and the governor refuses to defend the ballot measure.

Animal-rights groups won't be able to argue that the ballot-measure is valid. Instead, they will be told they have "no standing."

[elleng]

11. Probably not; narrow ruling.

No new law on 'standing.'

[Eric J in MN]

13. What is the difference between a

..."Traditional Marriage" group saying that its members are hurt mentally when gays marry, and an animal-rights group saying that its members are hurt mentally when animals suffer?

If the "Traditional Marriage" group has no standing, then why would the animal-rights group?

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Doesn't matter.

This ruling will not affect other cases. However, you can probably review the opinion to see what this narrow ruling is predicated on, to answer your hypothetical. (Which is interesting)

[elleng]

17. Prop 8 decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/26/us/26prop8-doc.html

[Eric J in MN]

18. The ruling of the court implies that

...the "Traditional Marriage" groups wanted to be able to argue against gay-marriage while claiming no harm whatsoever to themselves.

So maybe they can launch a new challenge saying that gay-marriage hurts them mentally.

[pink-o]

23. Umm....because cruelty to animals is quite a different thing

than someone who's merely uncomfortable with same-sex relationships.

We all saw the videos of pigs and cows being brutally abused by the slaughterhouse handlers. No human with a heart would equate that with two people in love who happen to share a gender.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. Incorporate the Pigs so they have Personhood and Citizenship Rights

and then sue for the pigs.

[melm00se]

19. Hit the implication

right on the head.

If the government decides not to pursue a legal course of action, this ruling stands in the way of the People (as opposed to the government) from bringing forth an appeal to a ruling.

[elleng]

21. because they weren't Parties to the original matter.

[cosmicone]

22. Allowing pigs to turn around

is not unconstitutional in any state. Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the equality clause of the CA constitution.

[Eric J in MN]

28. A state court might strike down a ballot measure that...

...pigs can't be put in tiny cages since it costs pork producers money and therefore it's taking the pork producers "property" without "due process."

I want for animal-rights groups to be able to appeal if that happens.

[happyslug]

37. Proposition 8 was UPHELD by the California Supreme Court

Thus this case involved Federal protected rights NOT State Protected rights. It was challenged in a Federal District Court on Equal Protection Grounds, the District Judge ruled it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 15th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. At that point the Governor and Attorney General of California decided NOT to appeal that decision.

People involved with getting Proposition 8 on the ballot then intervened and filed the appeal themselves. The Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled they had standing and then ruled against them. The US Supreme Court then took on the case and ruled the intervenors had no standing in the Federal Court System. That is the ruling today, not that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, but that only the State of California had standing to file the appeal and when it did not, the case ended at that point.

Once the Court ruled the Intervenors had no standing, the Court had made a ruling that the case before it and declined to rule on the merits of the case. i.e. the District court decision is valid for no valid appeal was taken from it, BUT the ruling of the Ninth Circuit is invalid for that court had no jurisdiction for one of the parties to the case had no standing. Unless both sides in the case has standing to argue the case, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Thus the Court did NOT rule on the merit of the Federal Court Decision, just ruled that it was a final decision on the merits of that case for no valid appeal had been taken from that decision.

[cosmicone]

40. Thank you for the explanation. n/t

[rwsanders]

27. You are correct as I think this principal has already been used to deny various environmental groups

the right to challenge USFWS rules.
Someone now has to show they were damaged by the rule to sue.

[TrogL]

12. CNN discussing it here

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1

[wryter2000]

16. This means...

Ed and David can get married at my church!

[Eric J in MN]

20. Who are they? NT

NT

[wryter2000]

33. Two members of my church

They've been in what really is a marriage for decades. David told me once they were ready whenever Prop H8 fell. Our rector is dying to marry our same sex couples. One of the reason he took the job was because your LGBT members are welcomed and valued in the same ways the other members are.

[cosmicone]

24. Interesting coalitions...

For the ruling: Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan

Opposed: Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Sonia Sotomayor!!

Not the traditional breakdown.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Maybe Sotomayor is concerned about limiting access to courts. NT

NT

[totodeinhere]

30. President Obama appointed an independent thinker who doesn't always follow the party line

on each and every thing such as some of the conservatives like Alito and Thomas do. To me that's a good thing.

[cosmicone]

32. Independent thinker etc. is fine in an ideal world

However, since the conservatives don't give a damn about independent thinking, we could lose every time.

Just imagine that if Roberts or Scalia had sided with the dissenters, this ruling would have gone the other way.

[wryter2000]

34. True, but

If the case had been decided on the issues, it might have been an even better decision. (Of course, it could have been a disaster, too.)

[elleng]

36. A VERY good thing, imo.

I like her a lot.

[totodeinhere]

29. This is only a partial victory.

It is a narrow ruling applying only to California. I am happy for people who live in California and obviously I am glad that they did not uphold Prop 8 but gay marriage remains illegal in large swaths of the country including in my home state. I had hoped that the ruling would have been a sweeping one that applies to all states. I know, perhaps that was too much to expect. Plus I am still pissed off at their gutting the Voting Rights Act yesterday.

Overall I would call this Supreme Court session a wash with some victories and some bad losses.

[happyslug]

38. I can make it narrower, it is restricted to one district in California

This is a decision based on STANDING. There was no issue of Standing at the Federal District Court level, the Plaintiff sued the State of California. Both appeared before the Federal judge and the Judge made his ruling as to proposition 8 violating the Equal protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.

At that point the state of California declined to appeal. The groups that had pushed through Proposition 8 then intervened and filed the appeal. The Ninth Circuit ruled they had standing, and it is that ruling that the US Supreme Court ruled on today (and ruled such intervenors have no standing in cases where a State Statute is in question).

Thus all the court did was ruled that since no one with standing filed an appeal from the Federal District Court, the appeal was invalid. What the Ninth Circuit court of Appeal said about the case is just Dicta now.

The only court that had people in front of it with standing was the Local Federal District Court and that decision stands. The problem it is only valid in that district, not in the rest of the Ninth Circuit or even other Federal District Courts in California. It can be cited as a precedent, but outside that District Court it is not binding.

[KamaAina]

31. In that case, how did the plaintiffs get cert?

Was it those same four justices? Are those votes made public?

If so, I've gotta wonder about Sonia. This whole mess could have been over months ago.

And it still won't stop. Now the bigots are saying the original decision applies only to two counties. Fortunately, they're L.A. and Alameda (Oakland, Berkeley), so in any event, marriage will soon be easily accessible to most Californians.

[elleng]

35. Dunno, but:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to.— Chief Justice Roberts, on ruling against hearing a case on California's gay marriage ban. ..

Hints about Cert here?

http://ggulawreview.org/2013/03/18/hollingsworth-v-perry-united-states-supreme-court-grants-certiorari-to-hear-the-prop-8-case/

More:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2013/03/goldstein-on-the-prop-8-cases-and-the-possibility-of-dismissal-of-cert-as-improvidently-granted.html

[happyslug]

39. Courts can rule on standing and Jurisdiction at any time.

I suspect the Justices wanted to make a ruling on same sex marriages, I suspected they wanted to rule it is up to the states except when Federal Benefits were at issue.

In the case involving DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) Justice Kennedy went on and on why the Court had Jurisdiction for it involved Federal Benefits.

on Proposition 8:

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.

On DOMA:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Parts II and III

In the above, Scalia is the most consistent, he opposed both cases on the ground on standing. In the Case OF DOMA I suspect he is right (and he is right as to Proposition 8). The parties in both of these cases did not have STANDING for the simple reason both were ruling against the Government (Proposition 8 it was the State of California, in DOMA it was the US Treasury). In both cases, the Government involved either did not file an appeal (Proposition 8) or supported the position of the other side (DOMA). Scalia would have none of it, he wanted to dismiss both as not a "Case in Controversy" and wait for another day, and some better cases, to decided the underlying issue. Roberts appear to agree with him on this point

Robert in his dissent in the DOMA case wanted to address the underlying issues but Scalia position was the constitution was clear, any case in front of the Court had to have two sides that OPPOSE each other on the issue. When you do not have that, the Case does NOT meet the mandated requirements of the US Constitution and the court lack jurisdiction to hear the case, let alone rule on it.

In the DOMA case, Alito and Thomas wanted to argue the merits of the case, and thus why you have two dissenting opinion in that case.

In the case of proposition 8, it is clear Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Somomayor were willing to rule that Proposition 8 was valid under the US Constitution simply on the ground they wanted to defer to the states the issue of what is marriage. In the DOMA Case, Kennedy made the same claim and that the Federal Government can NOT define Marriage for that was reserved to the States even if Federal Benefits are involved. In this Kennedy was supported by GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN.

In both cases only Ginsburg and Breyer were on the prevailing side both times, and we have no opinion written by either of them. Both thought the intervenors (the people who put Proposition 8 on the ballot) could not have standing to defend proposition 8, but then ruled that you had a case in controversy when the Government is saying it now agrees with the other side).

Alito and Thomas dissented in both cases, each time ruling the parties had standing (and thus dissenting from Scalia's own dissent in the Case of DOMA) but wanting to rule for Proposition 8 (and thus they disagree with the decision based on Standing in that case) AND uphold DOMA as valid power of Congress to determine who gets Federal Benefits.

Kennedy wanted to find Standing in both cases so he could get to the underlying merits, which he did on DOMA, and dissented in the case involving Proposition 8. Sotomayor seems to have agreed with him as to DOMA, but rejected that position as to Proposition 8.

Please note KENNEDY, THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR were all willing to uphold Proposition 8 on the ground that it passed FEDERAL constitutional muster on the ground it is a product of State Law and what is marriage is a matter of State law. I suspect Scalia was willing to do the same, but he wanted to make sure the Issue of "Cases in Controversy" was in front of him, and in his opinion it was not.

In simple terms, the issue is NOT done, it will be litigated again, hopefully by people who know how to make sure the case is a case in controvery up to and including the Supreme Court.

As to Cert, at the issue of cert, Standing does not have to be shown AT THAT POINT. Otherwise you would never get the US Supreme Court to rule on standing for it takes all of its cases on Cert. The Ninth Circuit had rule the intervenors had standing, and until the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise they did have standing (but then the court ruled they did not and that ended that case).