Leave a Comment Sagesse
DOMA challenge Cooper-Harris v. USA will continue as motion to stay proceedings is denied
August 3, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
The Southern Poverty Law Center brought a challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Cooper-Harris v. USA, on behalf of a military veteran who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis as a result of her job. The case has been pending before the district court in the Central District of California, but the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) who is defending the law for the House Republicans, asked the court to stay the proceedings in the case pending the outcome of another case, Golinski v. OPM, on expedited appeal to the Ninth Circuit and now before the Supreme Court for possible review.
The court today denied the motion to stay the proceedings. The judge discussed the relevant factors to consider in a motion to stay proceedings, laid out previously in the case Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., “1) damage that could result from granting the stay; 2) hardship that may result if the stay is denied; and 3) following an “orderly course of justice” measured in the simplification or complication of “issues, proof, and questions of law” that may result from a stay being granted[.]” The judge denied the stay of proceedings, writing that, “After weighing the Lockyer factors, the Court DENIES the Advisory Group’s Motion to Stay Proceedings.” The case will continue along its normal path and the district court will issue a decision on the merits.
Here is the filing, h/t Kathleen:50
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
8 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | August 3, 2012 at 10:14 am
@
2.
Glen | August 3, 2012 at 12:39 pm
I'm sure by now they are getting used to their string of losses.
3.
Anon post by regular | August 3, 2012 at 1:20 pm
finally the damage of a stay is recognized. what does that say about stays related to marriage equality cases in general. I know stay of prceedings is different than staying a decision. When decisions are stayed, the judge is saying it is ok to discriminate, even if my ruling says otherwise. No stays should have been issued at any level in prop 8, expecially since the marriage were legal up until prop 8 passed.
4.
Steve | August 3, 2012 at 3:21 pm
The case is also a bit different from the other DOMA cases in that it challenges an additional law about veteran's benefits. The same as the McLaughlin case by SLDN.
5.
truthspew | August 3, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Yeah – I knew the veterans benefits would come into the mix once DADT was repealed. I estimate that DOMA will suffer a fatal blow either last quarter of 2012, or first quarter of 2013. Then immediately after that I expect the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations along with Speaker Gordon Fox and Senate President M. Theresa Paiva-Weed to be sued for equality in RI.
6. Midday open thread | Hots&hellip | August 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm
[...] rules Southern Poverty Law Center’s constitutional challenge of the Defense of Marriage act may proceed in the Ninth Circuit. Speaker Boehner’s henchman, Paul Clement, will soon have the pleasure [...]
7. Midday open thread - Onli&hellip | August 4, 2012 at 2:59 pm
[...] rules Southern Poverty Law Center’s constitutional challenge of the Defense of Marriage act may proceed in the Ninth Circuit. Speaker Boehner’s henchman, Paul Clement, will soon have the pleasure [...]
8. Equality On Trial »&hellip | February 25, 2013 at 5:21 pm
[...] judge had denied a request to stay the case once before, last [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.