By Lyle Denniston
The Supreme Court on Tuesday chose a Harvard professor of constitutional law, Vicki C. Jackson, to argue that the Court does not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
She will file a brief and appear to argue the two procedural issues that the Court itself had raised in agreeing last Friday to consider DOMA’s validity.
Vicki C. Jackson
Jackson, who joined the Harvard faculty last year after several years at the Georgetown University Law Center, will contend that the executive branch’s agreement with a lower court that DOMA is invalid takes away the Justices’ authority to rule on DOMA, and that the House of Representatives’ Republican leaders do not have a right to appear in the case under Article III of the Constitution.
The professor will appear in the case as an amicus to make only those points, not to join in the debate over the constitutionality of DOMA, which the Court also will be considering. (Professor Jackson’s resume at Harvard is here.)
When the Court accepted for review two cases on the same-sex marriage issue, it added questions to each on issues about its authority to rule. The second granted case involves the constitutionality of California’s “Proposition 8,” withdrawing the right of gays and lesbians to marry in that state. In that case, the Court also will be considering whether the proponents of “Proposition 8″ as a ballot measure have a right under Article III to appeal a lower court decision striking down that measure.
With the addition of Professor Jackson to the DOMA case, it appears likely that the Court will expand the argument time for that case beyond the usual one hour. It is unclear when the Court will announce an argument schedule for the new marriage cases.
The Court presumably reached beyond the two parties in the DOMA case for a lawyer to argue the procedural points, since the parties themselves disagree. The federal government has been willing to allow the House GOP leaders to be in court to defend DOMA’s constitutionality, since the government is no longer doing so, but has raised questions about whether the Republican leaders’ petition is the one the Court should consider on DOMA.
In turn, the Republican leaders have contended that, since the government got its way in the Second Circuit Court, it is not a proper party to be appealing this case on DOMA. Professor Jackson, a neutral, will argue against both as the proper parties. The DOMA case that the Justices accepted for review is United States v. Windsor (docket 12-307).
The Court did not issue a similar order on the procedural question in the “Proposition 8″ case. Presumably, the two sides will be making arguments in opposition to each other on that point when they brief and argue that case. That case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (docket 12-144).
Related articles:
Amicus brief: U.S. Supreme Court does not have authority to rule on DOMA
U.S. Supreme Court schedules arguments in Prop 8, DOMA cases
U.S. Supreme Court sets briefing schedule for DOMA lawsuit
Five questions as U.S. Supreme Court considers marriage cases
Prop 8 attorneys confident court will strike down marriage ban
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Proposition 8, DOMA cases
Second Circuit case on DOMA may be high court’s strongest contender for deciding law's fate
Filed under: National Headlines
Florida teen fighting criminal charges related to same-sex relationship
Wash. florist who refused flowers for gay couple’s wedding files suit against state
Texas judge enforces ‘morality clause’ to split up lesbian couple
Catholic school: Transgender student must wear girl’s graduation gown
Another Ore. bakery refuses to provide wedding cake for same-sex couple
Matt Barber tweets homophobic cartoon of gay man tricking Boy Scout into sex
UPDATED: Police call fatal New York City shooting an anti-gay hate crime
Details emerge in case against teen accused of lewd behavior with girlfriend
Parents sue S.C. hospital over child’s gender assignment surgery
Scottish cardinal to atone for sexual misconduct with younger clergy
BREAKING: Minn. governor signs marriage equality bill — ‘Love is the law’
BREAKING: French president signs marriage equality bill into law
Everything is bigger in Texas – even the homophobia
Pa. school still refuses to announce transgender grad by his chosen name
Minn. governor to sign bill legalizing same-sex marriage
Yeah, SCotUS piss on the Constitution a little more why don’t you?
Can’t be good.
Seems as if they wish to dismiss the DOMA case and rule on the Prop 8 case, that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional Right. Thus overturning DOMA in its entirety.
Anyone know which attorneys are arguing against DOMA?
So what does this actually mean?
hey @TIM KOLANKO see the following link: The DOMA case: US v Windsor . . .Sup Ct. No. 12-307 <> be sure you look at the “question presented link”
hey @tim kolando see the folowing link: The Prop 8 Case: Hollingsworth v Perry . . .Sup Ct. No. 12-144 <>
Melvin … Not sure if this is what Tim is asking but if they DO decide that there is no standing where does this leave the case? I can’t see it as a split circuit decision, not in regards to a federal law. I understand the addition to the question just not the possible implications. (Excuse my legal ignorance)
Yeah, I consider it a good sign. She will be arguing that they have no right to address the question since it was handled by a lower court. The prior ruling would stand in that case, and THEY wouldn’t have to rule on it. I think they don’t want to vote for same-sex marriage, but they know they would have to. Unfortunately, I don’t think the “executive branch’s agreement” with the lower court keeps the Supreme Court from making the final decision. Separation of powers. It’s in the Constitution.
To repeat an above question but a little more specific: What does this mean? In English…that we non-attorney’s can understand?
To Stormy, the best way to explain is that the court has options. One is to completely overturn DOMA (unlikely). Another is to completely rule in favor of DOMA (I think also unlikely). Another is to send it back to lower courts for clarification. Another is to suggest that the Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction, letting the lower court’s decision stand. And most likely they may rule that each state has the right to define marriage, but that federal government can not distinguish between marriages (straight or gay) approved by the individual states. However, they may not even do that because in the DOMA case, at the time of the death of the partner the marriage from Canada was not recognized by the State of NY (although it would be now) where the beneficiary resided. There is also considerations about who could bring a case before the court, this is called “standing”. Standing is basically whether the people involved are actually affected by the outcome.
I’m hoping that DOMA fallls into a deep chasm and that it sends ripples across the country to allow same sex couples to marry
Larry – thanks for the clarification. Tho actually based on court rulings in Feb 2008 their marriage WAS recogonized in New York State at the time of her death in 2009.
The repeal of DOMA means a lot to me and that is why I’m asking.
Considering it’s a law on the books, the fed courts are the only faction appointed to rule on it. If they can’t then the law should be stricken
DOMA doesn’t stop couples from marrying, it prohibits GLBT married families from getting the federal benefits given to other couples
I understand that but I worked for the Federal Government and was able to take my medical with me. If DOMA is overturned, my partner can get on my insurance. It would be a big thing for the both of us.