Leave a Comment Sagesse
Supreme Court sets briefing schedule in DOMA case
December 14, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
In an order today, the Supreme Court set the briefing schedule in United States v. Windsor, the constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who stepped in to defend the law after the Justice Department stopped its defense, will file its first brief on the merits “on or before Tuesday, January 22, 2013[.]” The Court granted the Justice Department’s petition but they agree with the lower court and the plaintiffs that the law is unconstitutional, so the briefing schedule will reflect that the party who lost in the lower court – BLAG – will file the opening merits brief.
The Solicitor General will file a brief due “on or before Friday, February 22, 2013.” And plaintiff Edith Windsor’s brief is due “on or before Tuesday, February 26, 2013.” Then replies will be filed according to the Court’s established rules.
On the jurisdictional questions raised, whether BLAG has Article III standing and whether the Justice Department’s agreement with the decision below deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court recently appointed an attorney to argue as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) against jurisdiction. Her brief arguing that point is due “on or before January 22, 2013.” Briefs on this point from the Solicitor General, BLAG, and Windsor are due “on or before Wednesday, February 20, 2013″ Replies will then be filed according to the rules of the Court.
The order also lists the time frame to file amicus curiae briefs.
The Court has not yet set a date for oral arguments or indicated how much time will be allowed for arguments on the merits and on the Article III standing and jurisdiction questions.
h/t Kathleen for this order
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
11 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Bob | December 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm
off topic for the page,,,,, but Westboro Baptist Church is at it again
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/anonymous-ta…
2.
Bob | December 16, 2012 at 2:07 pm
same here but this is cool
http://www.theprovince.com/life/legalize+marriage…
3.
dtwirling | December 16, 2012 at 2:56 pm
In other news… Are the times a-changin'?
FOX News promotes an article by Stephanie Pappas, "Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find" which explains a scientific theory of how homosexuality is linked to genetics (through epigenetics) without there being a "gay gene."
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/11/homosexu…
4.
Reformed | December 16, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Commenting on a previous post, I mentioned a possible parallel to the courts appointing an attorney to argue, as stated in this post, "against jurisdiction". Here is an excerpt from wikipedia on the subject.
On January 8, 1982, just before the case (bob jones university vs. the United States) was to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Ronald Reagan authorized his Treasury and Justice Departments to ask that the BJU case be dropped and that the previous court decisions be vacated. Political pressure quickly brought the Reagan administration to reverse itself and to ask the Court to reinstate the case. Then, in a virtually unprecedented move, the Court invited William T. Coleman, Jr. to argue the government's position in an amicus curiae brief, thus ensuring that the prosecution's position would be the one the Court wished to hear.
Result was BJU lost, lost its tax exemption, and was required to pay a million dollars in back taxes. I wonder if a parallel can be drawn here. The SC appointed someone to hear the argument that they wanted to be presented. In the current case, are they appointing someone to argue the case as they wish to hear it? I think so.
5.
B Z | December 16, 2012 at 6:33 pm
I don't know about that – last term in the health care cases, SCOTUS appointed an amicus to argue that the Anti-Injunction Act deprived the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear lawsuits challenging the mandate until after the mandate went into effect, and they ultimately ruled unanimously against this position.
6.
Reformed | December 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm
On a side note, BJU is the nerve center of the vast network of non catholic conservative opposition to and demonization of gay people. BJU is knows as an IFB school. Google IFB sex abuse, websites like "chucklestravels", or check out "jack schaap" for an interesting look into this world of IFB churches and their hypocrisy. An infamous sermon by schaap is posted on You Tube. Google "Charles Snow BJU". 20/20 did a documentary about the Chuck Phelps matter and IFB's coverups. Also worth mentioning, Fred Phelps, of Westoro Baptist Church, got his start at BJU. Bob Jones III, a former university president, has publically contemplated the execution of gay people.
7.
Reformed | December 16, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Look into the history of Beverly LaHaye, founder of concerned women of america, a group tracked by Southern Poverty. Wikipedia biographical entry, second paragraph . . . Bob Jones University .
8.
Reformed | December 16, 2012 at 7:22 pm
I find that reassuring as well. A court that appears to seek out the facts and request and introduce relevant arguments from external parties that it feels it cannot get from the existing parties to a case. To acknowledge that we might not be able to grant relief because no one has yet been harmed seems like something we would like to see in a court hearing Prop 9 and DOMA. By that I mean, a court that wont be so activist and irresponsible as to brush aside important matters just to take an animus based action. I think the Prop 8 case was taken precisely because the court was interested in resolving the jurisdictional issue. But i dont know, that has just been my initial thought from the beginning.
9.
Mark | December 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Forbes magazine predicting a 6-3 decision ruling DOMA and Prop. 8 unconstitutional: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/12/18/how-…
10. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | January 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm
[...] in the case is set to begin this month with BLAG’s first brief due January 22, the same day the brief on the jurisdictional and [...]
11. Marriage Equality | Glimm&hellip | March 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm
[...] the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA–the Defense of Marriage [...]
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.