NOW THERE ARE 37! Marriage Equality Comes To Alabama!

With the Supreme Court's 7-2 vote to deny their request for a stay on a federal judge's ruling striking down Alabama's ban on marriage equality, the Cotton State becomes the 37th in the union to allow same-sex couples to get married. Only Justices Scalia and Thomas would have approved Alabama's request for a stay.

Same-sex couples are getting married in the majority of the counties in Alabama today, despite attempts by Chief Justice Roy Moore and Governor Robert Bentley to not follow the rule of law as clearly articulated by the federal judiciary. Gee, when has that happened before?

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

Supreme Court Refuses To Delay Florida Marriage Equality From Going Into Effect Jan. 5

Wow! The United States Supreme Court has denied Florida's request for a stay of a federal district court judge's decision ruling that Florida's 2006 state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality violates the federal constitution. The Court said that Justices Thomas and Scalia would have granted the petition for a stay.

This is a VERY big deal, because this is the first time the High Court has let marriages go into effect as a result of a mere district court decision, when there was no precedent for marriage equality in the controlling appellate circuit of jurisdiction. Florida is in the 11th Circuit, and that appellate circuit has not ruled in favor of marriage equality (and in fact has some anti-gay decision in its not too recent past). The current legal skirmish the Supreme Court decided was about what should happen while the merits of the state's appeal get determined. Almost a year ago, in Utah's marriage equality case, the Supreme Court unanimously granted a stay putting a federal district court decision in Kitchen v Herbert on hold while the 10th Circuit was considering that appeal. In both cases the appellate circuit had refused to grant the stay while they considered the appeal and the state appealed to the Supreme Court in both cases. In the Utah case, the 10th Appellate Circuit ruled against the state on the merits on appeal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to hear Utah's appeal of that loss, allowing marriage equality to go into effect in the 4th, 10th and 7th circuits. The denial of a stay in Armstrong v. Brenner (the Florida case) demonstrates how swiftly the tide has turned in favor of marriage equality, even at the Supreme Court level. 11 months ago they granted a similar petition, 9-0, on Friday they denied it 2-7.

The Washington Blade reports:

In August, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle ruled against the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, known as Amendment 2, but placed a stay on his order until 91 days passed after the appeals process was completed in the Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia marriage cases. When the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review these cases, it set for date for same-sex couples to be able to marry in Florida starting Jan. 5. 

Bondi tried to extend the stay on the same-sex marriages as she continued to defend the law in court, but her requests were by denied by the district court as well as the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the stay to be lifted “at the end of the day” on Jan. 5.  

In a statement, Bondi said Florida will acquiesce to the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the stay to expire after Jan. 5 as initially ordered by the district court. 

Hat/tip to Equality On Trial

SCOTUS Denies Kansas Request For Stay On Marriage Equality Ruling

The Supreme Court denied a last-ditch effort by Kansas to prevent marriage equality from coming to the Sunflower State on Wednesday. As you can see from the order, only Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would have granted the stay. There had been some question whether the Suporeme Court would continue allowing same-sex couples to get married in states after the 6th Circuit broke the string of appellate court rulings in favor of marriage equality last week, making it likely that the court will have to issue a ruling with national impact sooner rather than later.

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner

GetEqual: History is Watching The Supreme Court

This is a pretty compelling video from the direct action group GetEqual, basically warning the individual Justices of the United States Supreme Court that they might not want to get on the wrong side of history with their rulings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases. GetEqual is calling for nothing short of full federal equality under the law for LGBT citizens, something the Court is unwilling to do in the cases, but substantial progress, such as marriage equality in an additional 9 states and heightened scrutiny paid to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation  or gender identity are not unlikely results of decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor.

I'm pretty sure the voice-over is done by my friend Ben Patrick Johnson.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Analyzing This SCOTUS Term To Predict The Next

In today's New York Times reporter Adam Liptak analyzes the just-completed 2011-12 term of the United States Supreme Court and unearths some interesting (and surprising) facts. The Court heard oral arguments in 65 cases and summarily decided 10 other cases without oral argument. That's 75 decisions in which certioari was granted despite getting literally thousands of appeals from all the lower courts in the land.

Chief Justice John Roberts was only 1 percentage point behind Anthony Kennedy, who is widely viewed as the fulcrum around which the nation's highest court pivots around, in the percentage of cases in which they were in the majority (92% to 93%). This number is a widely watched measure as a signifier for the most "powerful" or influential member of the Court.

The court decided 15 cases by 5-to-4 votes, roughly in line with earlier terms. It was also not unusual that two-thirds of those decisions divided along ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy joining either the court’s four more liberal members (Justices Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) or its four more conservative ones (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Clarence Thomas). 

What was striking this year was that Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, swung right and left an equal number of times. Since 2000, there have been only two terms in which Justice Kennedy did not vote with the conservatives at least 60 percent of the time in such ideologically divided cases.

Is Kennedy evolving to the left? I guess I'm pretty happy with a 10-point shift towards liberal results instead of his usual 60-40 split between conservative and liberal positions. Maybe it's because he seems to be getting closer to Elena Kagan, since the two voted similarly 83% of the time this term. There are only two pairs of justices who voted similarly more than 90% of the time  (you guessed it!) Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas with the other (somewhat surprising) pair being George W. Bush appointees Roberts and  Samuel Alito. I guess "Scalito" is not living up to his reputation to become "a little Scalia" on the Court.
And that's a good thing. As his absolutely unacceptable fit of pique in the Arizona immigration ruling aptly demonstrated, even one Scalia on the Supreme Court is one too many!

You should really read Liptak's entire piece for yourself. There are some big gay rights cases coming up in the 2012-13 term, most likely involving the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and another determining the constitutionality of California's attempt to withdraw marriage rights from same-sex couples by allowing voters to amend the state constitution after California's Supreme Court had ruled such a right exists (2008's Proposition 8). These cases are known as Gill and Perry, respectively. We'll know on the first Monday of October whether the Court will indeed accept these cases for final review (and issue a ruling by this time next year). There are also some very high-stakes cases coming in the new term dealing with race. The Court has already agreed to hear oral arguments in Fisher v. Texas which it could use to completely strike down race-based affirmative action in higher education. In addition, there are several voting rights cases at the federal appellate circuit level, particularly Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which will almost certainly reach the Court in the 2012-13 term and could be used to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's this provision of federal civil rights legislation which has been instrumental in putting a check on Republican politicians' attempt to suppress the voting rights of Black and Latino voters in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin and others through enactment of "voter identification" laws.

In the meantime it is useful to analyze last year's term to see if any ideological movement can be discerned which can help predict how the Court will rule in Gill and Perry, though as the ruling upholding the health care reform law demonstrated, accurately predicting how the Court will rule in any particular case is almost impossible!

Anita Strikes Back!

Reading Paul Schindler's blog today I discovered that Anita Hill is responding to the accusations that appear in Justice Clarence Thomas's new autobiographical memoir screed My Grandfather's Son. Schindler is the editor of Gay City News, a LGBT newspaper in New York City. On his blog he links to an op-ed published by Hill, who is now a Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women's Studies at Brandeis University, called "The Smear This Time." I agree with Schindler that by choosing this title Anita Hill (Or the Times' editors?) is referring to how she feels she was mistreated by the media during the 1991 Hill-Thomas hearings when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush. It's Mad Professah's understanding that people who submit op-eds don't have control over what headline is put over their work when it appears in print--but maybe that's not true at the Gay City News or the New York Times.

Anyway, it's good to see Anita back in the news, and still standing by her testimony and showing why Clarence Thomas should not be on the U.S. Supreme Court.