LGBT News live blog for Prop 8/DOMA court cases

That's a really useful project. However, today, "9:57, Tom: We unfortunately don’t know what decisions we will get today. That said, it’s unlikely that we will get Prop 8 or DOMA. It’s likely those will both come down on the last day of the Term (because they were argued late and are so controversial); and again, we are not exactly sure when that will be but based on tradition, probably before the end of the week."

 

I was watching the live blog. Prop 8 / DOMA aren't coming today. But we got a ruling in Fisher. I'm still reading the opinion. Amy Howe is also doing a Plain English write up of it. From my initial reading it appears that there aren't going to be any changes in Affirmative Action, but the court left the window open for something to happen in the future.

Once the Plain English write up is posted, I'll link it in its own thread.

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2013 at 10:40 AM ----------

The Court just announced that it will be back at 10 AM tomorrow. So we might get a ruling then. However, it will not be the last day. So it can still come later in the week. (Most people are assuming that it will come on the last day.)

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2013 at 10:46 AM ----------

Bloomberg News is out with some early reporting on Fisher.

Link to source here.

Still waiting for Plain English review of the ruling by Amy Howe.

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2013 at 11:01 AM ----------

Some more early reporting on Fisher...

By USA Today.

By the Statesman (Local Austin News).

By the Dallas News.

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2013 at 11:04 AM ----------

By NBC News (Pete Williams, their Justice Correspondent).

 

There are six cases left to announce: both of the same-sex marriage cases (Perry and Windsor), the case addressing the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County), Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (about the Indian Child Welfare Act), Sekhar (criminal case dealing with the Hobbs Act), and Koontz (a property rights case).

Everyone is still really worried that the court is going to toss out part of the Voting Rights Act.

 

I'm not feeling good about these rulings for some reason.

 

I'm scared you guys. I don't how to feel about this at all :/

 

Don't let the lateness get to you, it's difficult but with it being controversial sometimes they just take the longest...but may not wind up negative. We'll see

 

On one hand, the lateness is scary. They could actually think being LGBT is a choice and that doesn't give us the right to equal rights, etc. and they're trying to decide the best course of action.

But on the other hand, the lateness could be good. They could be deciding if they want to make a wide ruling to abolish all laws preventing same sex marriage or if they should keep them very streamlined.

It's something we won't know until we see the outcome.

 

If this doesn't rule in our favor....just remember the same happened with African Americans with Plessy v. Ferguson. There's always hope, even beyond this case.
I'm a little anxious because besides DOMA they're also considering Prop 8 in California.
I actually feel like Prop 8 might end up standing, while DOMA is struck down.

 

I wouldn't worry. Late doesn't mean a bad thing. Just look at Lawrence VS Texas, that was left to the last minute and it was one of the best ruling one could ask for

 

It looks like it's closed for today.

 

If anything it being "controversial" suggests only potentially positive things for the Prop 8 / DOMA rulings.

This:

suggests to me that we will likely get all the decisions as they have been speculated on till this point (since I've heard the majority of predictions pointing toward the above happening in the affirmative action case). Meaning, for Prop 8 / DOMA: thrown out on technicality, District Court ruling for California stands; and struck down as unconstitutional, same-sex couples get full federal benefits in all states where same-sex marriage contracts are legal; respectively.

 

Don't be scared. Even if we lose these cases, we're on the right side of history. Support is quickly swinging our way. Maybe it will take a little longer to sink in, but we've already won.

 

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act has just been declared unconstitutional. This is is a major ruling with huge implications...

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:18 AM ----------

No more opinions today. So no ruling on DOMA or Prop8.

 

The suspense is killing me... ;-;

 

Amy Howe: There are three cases left to be decided. Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case, United States v. Windsor, the Defense of Marriage Act case, and Sekhar, the case involving whether a lawyer's advice is property for purposes of the Hobbs Act.

Amy Howe: To reiterate, we do NOT expect any more cases today. The Court will have to add at least one more day this week to announce opinions, but we don't yet know when that will be.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:29 AM ----------

Early reporting regarding the Shelby case (voting rights) from the AP.

Source.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:31 AM ----------

Comment From Jordan
Considering the length of time it is taking to release opinions in the Prop8 and DOMA cases does that suggest they are more likely to not have rejected the case on standing? From Kevin: Not necessarily. So long as any of the Justices (in concurrence or dissent) find standing, that Justice will need to address the merits.

Amy Howe: From the Chief Justice: Tomorrow at 10 a.m. will be the last day and we will release all the remaining opinions.

Amy Howe: The Court has just recessed for the day. Wow!

---

This means we will know the ruling on Prop8 and DOMA tomorrow for certain.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:34 AM ----------

NBC News's Justice Correspondent Pete Williams has some early reporting on the Voting Rights decision.

Source.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:37 AM ----------

Amy Howe: Today’s holding in Shelby County v. Holder, in Plain English: Today the Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That portion of the Act was designed to prevent discrimination in voting by requiring all state and local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures, no matter how small. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:38 AM ----------

Comment From Guest
Given the majority opinion in Shelby County, is it reasonable to believe Congress could pass any formulae that would meet the majority's requirement? From Kevin: Seems to me that the biggest obstacle is getting such a bill through Congress, not surviving subsequent Supreme Court review.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:41 AM ----------

Comment From Michael
Amy, can you explain the comment earlier regarding "So it's the Chief for Perry, Kennedy for Windsor, and Scalia for Sekhar? (reading the blanks on your stats page...) From Amy: I haven't had a chance to look, but going into today it did look like the Chief for Perry and Kennedy for Windsor, so that might make sense." How do we know which justices will read which decisions tomorrow? From Kevin: It's a prediction based on what cases are remaining, and who has written so far in the months in which the cases were argued. The prediction is that the Chief has the majority opinion in Perry; Kennedy has it in Windsor; and Scalia is writing Sekhar. But it's all just guesswork.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:44 AM ----------

Comment From Jordan
Does knowing (or having a good guess) as to who is writing give any indication as to the way the court may have gone? I know in some cases it might, but specifically in the three remaining? From Kevin: Some folks think that if the Chief is writing Perry, it is more likely that the appeal will be dismissed on standing grounds. The thinking is that it is less likely that he'd be writing to strike down Prop 8 on the merits (and that there is no majority to uphold it).

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:46 AM ----------

Comment From Kyna
So does this decision today basically makes the Voting Rights Act null and void? It makes the pre-clearance requirement null and void. Section 2 of the Act remains in force, and Section 5 could be back in play if Congress can come up with a new coverage formula. That, however, seems rather unlikely.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 10:46 AM ----------

Comment From Guest
Getting such a bill through Congress would seem especially difficult given the greater precision with which the Court is demanding the formula be crafted. I don't foresee any Member of Congress volunteering their state/district to fit within any new preclearance formula. Not too popular with the constitutes to go about saying, "Yes, we have some lingeering effects of voting discrimination and need some federal supervision." Good point, but it's worth remembering that the Reauthorization of the VRA passed overwhelmingly. It's always possible that they could come up with some kind of compromise.

 

Comment From Nancy Jacobson
We should be clear that the VRA still gives us the option to challenge changes to election legislation in any jurisdiction just as we have had before; however, the jurisdictions previously covered in Section 4, which were required to get approval from the DOJ for any changes, no longer have to get approval or "pre-clearance." We can still challenge the changes, but the burden is on the challenger to prove it's a violation of the VRA, instead of on the jurisdiction to prove it's not a violation of the VRA.

---------- Post added 25th Jun 2013 at 11:00 AM ----------

Comment From PKP
So if Perry is dismissed on standing grounds, what happens? From Kevin: Marty Lederman has a long, thoughtful post on this question on the blog: Understanding standing: The Court

 

I'm not really surprised that Section 4 of the VRA was struck down, for some reason. I'm not holding out any hope for DOMA being struck down either.

 

Okay, guys. We'll know about Prop8 and DOMA tomorrow. It'll suck for me, though, because I'll probably be away from a computer when it happens. Ugh! Damn you SCOTUS!