Proponents of Proposition 8, ruled unconstitutional by Federal Courts, and whose Supreme Court appeal was dismissed for a lack of standing on their part to sue in Federal Courts, have filed an emergency appeal with Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. Basically claiming the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unlawfully rescinded it’s stay on Friday when it should have waited the 25 days for a certified copy of the SCOTUS ruling, the proponents are requesting an immediate vacating of the Appeals Court order vacating IT’S stay.
It gets even crazier from that point!
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, California, today ruled not to hear an en banc appeal of it’s previous three judge ruling, that upheld the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
By a two to one vote, the panel denied the request for a hearing before a panel of eleven of the court’s twenty nine judgeships.
The court also stayed it’s ruling for ninety days, to allow time for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Should that court unexpectedly refuse to hear the case, Proposition 8 would finally be dead, and same-gender marriages could resume in California. Most observers, however, expect the Supreme Court to accept the appeal, and hear the case.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed the original case against Proposition 8, and you can read their notice here.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a 2009 Arizona law stripping same-sex partners of public employees of their health-insurance coverage. Tuesday’s ruling means the state must continue to provide coverage until there is a full trial of whether or not the 2009 law is unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a temporary block on a controversial 2009 state law that sought to strip health coverage for gay and lesbian domestic partners of Arizona employees.
In a 13-page opinion, the three-member appeals panel said such a law would go against the long-standing constitutional right to equal protection.