Does this mean all anti-same sex marriage laws are invalidated?

[Renew Deal]

This decision came from a federal court. Does that mean marriage is now legal in all 50 states?

[elleng]

1. No, just pertains to particulars of the case at issue,

but the reasoning is available everywhere.

[WonderGrunion]

2. Only the states in District 9

For this to apply across the country, it must be appealed to the Supreme Court and we must win again.

[NoNothing]

4. You mean 9th Circuit

And that's the next level up.

[Hosnon]

38. You have something against alien marriage? nt.

[NoNothing]

3. No, only in that district

Other districts are not bound by that one.

[Renew Deal]

6. Does that mean "same-sex marriage" is now legal in Arizona?

Nevada, Oregon, etc?

[Richardo]

7. See Reply #1

[NoNothing]

9. No, they're not in the same district.

[Renew Deal]

10. Yes they are

[Hosnon]

11. Those are Circuits, not Districts.

You can see the individual District boundaries on that map (the boundaries divide some of the states, such as California and Georgia).

[Richardo]

12. That's true, but it doesn't matter if they're Circuits, Districts, or craters on the moon

The decision applies to the specific action only - which was a suit brought against Prop 8 in California.

[Hosnon]

13. Of course it matters.

Had this been in a Circuit (e.g., the 9th), each District Court in each state in the 9th would have binding precedent stating that a ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

[Richardo]

16. Touche', but I meant as far as it applying to other jurisdictions within the Circuit.

The decision only strikes down Prop 8.

[Hosnon]

18. Yeah. It will be referenced in other districts but there is no precedential effect. nt.

[msanthrope]

14. No--you are conflating circuits and districts.....

the 9th circuit has lots of smaller districts...

This ruling is precedent-setting within the district. Edited to add--it takes effect across CA because the state is an intervenor, though.....

It is not binding, but must be considered in another district within the same circuit, generally as 'persuasive' absent major flaw. (this would be considered 'binding' in a district that has CA in it, but not in, say, OR.)

Out of the circuit, is not binding, and not 'persuasive', but should be considered.

[CurtEastPoint]

5. Jeebus. If PORTUGAL, SPAIN, MEXICO, ARGENTINA, et al say it's OK, WTF are we doing?

Those are the MOST 'religious'/'Catholic' countries and it's OK by them?

Who is RUNNING this country?

Pardon my caps. Shouting to myself, I guess.

[Ignis]

21. We're appeasing Republicans. Gotta reach across the aisle, y'know!

And yes, it's disgusting.

[Fearless]

27. Because American politicans haven't had a good record traveling to Argentina this year.

:wow:

[rox63]

8. No, just in CA

Prop. 8 was passed in CA, so it affects all of CA. He only invalidated Prop. 8.

[msanthrope]

15. Corrected, it does affect all of CA--I typed too fast....

On edit, the forgot the State was an intervenor....so it applies state-wide, not just in the federal district.

[Hosnon]

17. I don't think that's accurate.

The statute is now void, completely. The alternative (different constitutions in the same state) would be too chaotic.

[msanthrope]

19. Actually, we are both right and wrong----

Because the State of CA is an intervenor it is across the state of CA. I forgot it wasn't just the fundy bastards.....

Otherwise, it would only be district-wide.

[Hosnon]

20. I dunno.

Federal judges have the authority to void law that violates the U.S. Constitution. Judicial interpretations of law can perhaps vary by District, but not the constitutionality.

[msanthrope]

22. Yes--they can vary, and when you have what is called a 'circuit split'

SCOTUS is called on to resolve it.

Here, you had the State of CA called as an intervenor--so the state is the boundary of the decision, as opposed to merely the judicial district.

[Hosnon]

24. It makes more sense with Circuit splits because that is

disagreement that affects whole states, not parts of states. It just seems like bad policy to allow a state law's or constitution's applicability vary within that state (if held void by a federal judge).

I'm sure this is settled legal doctrine but I'm not certain either way (perhaps you are, in which case the source would be helpful in ending this subthread).

[msanthrope]

25. Well, most of the time, federal cases are not opining on state law.

At least, the federal courts TRY to avoid that....

As for legal source, I can only reference my first day of judicial procedure.

[Hosnon]

28. Well this is clearly a federal question.

And this issue must come up any time a District judge in a multiple District state rules a state law or constitutional provision is unconstitutional.

Now I won't be able to sleep until this is definitively answered.

[msanthrope]

30. Go to sleep.

Because the State of CA was a party, this decision 'crosses districts' and the 'boundary' of the decision is the state of CA.

Normally, when an individual state is not a party (think federal civil case, or fed. criminal pros.) then decisions are bounded in the district, and follow the precedent rules I outlined above.

Trust me.

[Hosnon]

31. With all due respect,

if it's that settled, providing a source (other than yourself) should not be that difficult.

I'm not saying I know you are wrong or that I'm right. But the only person who gets by with "trust me" when it comes to legal interpretation is a judge (in his or her courtroom).

[msanthrope]

33. Okay--is your question why it applies to the whole State of CA

and not just the federal district it was filed in?

Because the State is a party. The whole State. States can't partition themselves. They are, in fact, the Defense, but let's face it, they acted more like an intervenor, (which is how I characterize them upthread) and the actual party-in-interest are the Mormons and the other Prop 8 proponents. But that's a side issue.

I suggest you read the commentary on FRCP 17 as to the nature of a 'party.' Start with that cite.

As to your other questions, you can read up on horizontal and vertical precedent and stare decisis. Now, some lawyers would disagree with my analysis of horizontal precedent on the district level, but that's an internecine argument.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking beyond that, if anything.

[Hosnon]

34. So were the state not involved, gay marriage would be outlawed

in some parts of California but not others?

[msanthrope]

35. Okay.....

1) I apologize....I reread some of my posts upthread and realized that replying to too many threads at once, combined with my dinner wine, may have lead to some confusion, and my being very sloppy with terms. Bad. Sorry. So let me answer you in full.


2) If the state were not involved in this lawsuit, then the district court decision would only apply within the district. **** BUT---

3) The state MUST be involved in this lawsuit, as it's a state law....and that's probably a tautology. Welcome to the law.

4) I had a brain fart upthread, and called the state an 'intervenor'. They are not. They are the actual Defense, although they punted and let the intervenors (the prop 8 assholes) do all the heavy lifting. Sorry--I think that caused some confusion because of my sloppiness.


****Lots of lawyers would argue with me until the cows come home about horizontal precedent on the district level. And I would agree that my Cliff Notes version of HP is highly variable, but not on cases like this one, i.e., a Big One, where you aren't going to get another lawsuit at the DC level. The bite from the apple took place, and it's going up to the appellate level now, where the only question will be how long it will take.

[Hosnon]

36. Thanks for the thorough replies.

So when the federal constitutionality of a state law or constitutional provision is at issue, the state itself must be a party, thereby binding the entire state?

That works (and would clear up any problems of effectively having multiple versions of a constitution in a state).

[msanthrope]

37. Yes.

And it is then the job of the State Attorney General*** to mount a defense.

Here, you had a weird case. The Plaintiffs (Perry and crew) sued the State....but the State AG (Jerry Brown) really didn't disagree with them. So the court granted 'intervenor' status to the proponents of Prop 8, because they (rightly) argued that their interests and claims would not be properly presented by the State AG.

Had the court NOT allowed intervenor status, you can bet that every single winger group in CA would have filed motions, and their own lawsuits...so the court was smart. Effectively, all proponent interests were put, like eggs, into one basket.

So the case basically became the intervenors and the Plaintiffs, with the actual Defendant (the State) phoning it in...

I do apologize for not being clearer, upthread.

***This is analogous to the Solicitor General position on the federal side.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Unfortunately, not at all

This is but one step on the way toward equality.

The ruling has already been appealed. It will be heard at the circuit court level, and then at the USSC.

It's a terrific step, and that the judge saw through the flimsy "arguments" of the bigots is certainly heartening, but it's just one step.

[Lisa0825]

26. self delete

saw the answer in thread above.

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. No, but....

It's a pretty good legal precedent for a lawyer to cite when he or she challenges bigotry in another state.

[Fearless]

32. +1