9th Circuit refuses to lift stay of Prop 8 strikedown 
| Article Index |
|---|
| 9th Circuit refuses to lift stay of Prop 8 strikedown |
| Now |
| All Pages |
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 23 refused a request from the American Foundation for Equal Rights and lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies that it lift its block on the August 2010 federal district court ruling that struck down Proposition 8.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had issued an injunction barring further enforcement of Prop 8 after finding that it violates the U.S. Constitution. The 9th Circuit, however, quickly "stayed" Walker's injunction, and his ruling has been tied up on appeal since.
Prop 8, passed by voters in November 2008, amended the California Constitution to halt same-sex marriage, which was legal in the state at the time.
Olson and Boies say the appeal process is taking too long, especially given a lengthy delay introduced into the case in February when the 9th Circuit punted to the California Supreme Court the question of whether the people who are appealing Walker's ruling -- the folks who put Prop 8 on the ballot -- actually have any right, under California law, to appeal.
None of the people who are defendants in the case -- including Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris -- have an interest in appealing Walker's ruling or defending Prop 8. As a result, if the Prop 8 supporters are found to have no standing to appeal, then the 9th Circuit won't hear the case, Walker's ruling would take effect, and same-sex couples could marry again in California -- although the question of standing also could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The stay was originally ordered with the understanding that the 9th Circuit would rule swiftly on the case before it," said Olson. "Now that the issue of the (Prop 8) proponents' standing to appeal has been referred for analysis by the California Supreme Court, substantial additional, indefinite and unanticipated delays lie ahead. It's unreasonable and decidedly unjust to expect California's gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second-class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory is debated further."
The 9th Circuit apparently was unswayed by that line of reasoning, though it did not explain why.
On March 23, the judges ordered: "Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder ... and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ... we deny Plaintiffs' motion at this time."
It was unclear if the phrase "at this time" was an indication that the court might see the matter differently at some future time.
