Question about Supreme Court gay marriage decision

[ShamDam]

If the Supreme Court decides that states do have the right to ban same-sex marriages, will that override the decisions of the appellate courts, or will the decisions they've made remain in effect? I.E., will we suddenly see a drop in the number of states with legalized gay marriage? Thanks.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A lot depends on how SCOTUS rules on the second issue they said they would consider, whether states must recognize SSMs done in other states even if they don't do so themselves.  We could end up with a situation like Mexico's, where SSM is effectively legal everywhere despite only a few states granting recognition.

But even if they give a unexpectedly strong double body blow to the hopes of SSM advocates, it wouldn't be a overnight resumption of the bans, and there would be the issue of what happen to those marriages done in states that only recognized SSM because of a Federal court.

[Thomas D]

So I saw on line that the last day of this term (And thus the day this decision will likely be announced) is June 30. How set in stone is that likely to be?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So I saw on line that the last day of this term (And thus the day this decision will likely be announced) is June 30. How set in stone is that likely to be?

That the last day of the term is June 30, is firmly set in stone.  Monday, June 29 is the last day the court is currently scheduled to meet, but it is possible that they'll add a session on the 30th.  Except for per curiam opinions that cannot wait until October to be issued, SCOTUS doesn't hand out decisions during the three month break.  Unless for some unexpected reason they decide to hold off until the next term to hand out a decision, there will be a decision by June 30.

[Adam Griffin]

I took a brief glance at the remaining states' cases, and it seems that all of the others either weren't far enough along to have a verdict by June, have been stayed pending the case or stayed indefinitely for some reason or another.

So, is this what the map will look like when a verdict is rendered? Will there be any more rulings before June?

[7,052,770]

The Fifth Circuit (MS/LA/TX) will potentially rule before then. Or may decide not to.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Fifth Circuit (MS/LA/TX) will potentially rule before then. Or may decide not to.

I'm guessing if a SCOTUS ruling is imminent, the circuit courts will lose interest in ruling.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Fifth Circuit (MS/LA/TX) will potentially rule before then. Or may decide not to.

If they do, it's SSM from sea to shining sea!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The eighth circuit is hearing oral arguments the week of May 11th and could rule before SCOTUS.

But the eighth circuit is likely to rule against ssm given its history. It upheld Nebraska’s ban in '06.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That was in the pre-Windsor era in which Baker was the most relevant  SCOTUS precedent. The judges on the case are far more relevant tea leaves to read here.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

That was in the pre-Windsor era in which Baker was the most relevant  SCOTUS precedent. The judges on the case are far more relevant tea leaves to read here.

Has information on who will be on the three judge panel actually been released? I did a few searches just now and didn't see anything.

If not, then the only tea leaves we have are the 2006 case (keep in mind the 8th circuit will be ruling on Nebraska's ban again as a part of these arguments, so no doubt the defendants will use the 2006 ruling as an argument for their position at every opportunity.) and the fact that the 8th circuit is generally regarded as one of the more conservative-leaning appeals courts, both of which point in the direction against SSM.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would be very odd if they suddenly invalidated Hollingsworth v. Perry.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would be very odd if they suddenly invalidated Hollingsworth v. Perry.

The idea that a supreme court decision ruling that both state refusal to license and state refusal to recognize are O.K. would immediately invalidate all lower court decisions overnight is not true. It would pretty much prevent any pro-gay marriage rulings in the 12 states that completely prohibit SSM. But it would, in the immediate term, change nothing in the 35 states that have full legalization and recongition, and in the three states that have partial legalization/recongition (MO, KS, AL). what would happen among the states that got SSM due to a lower court ruling is a mixture of these:

1. Some justices would probably put out clarified rulings saying that due to the SCOTUS's ruling, they are no longer imposing their decision on the state. In these states, SSM would go back to being illegal, though some of these states might later pass statutes allowing the practice or saying that SSM's from before the SCOTUS ruling are still valid. For the rest of the states:

2. Some of them might simply decline to continue enforcing their state's ruling despite the lack of a clarification from the justice, but take no further action, to avoid complaints over the ending of existing same sex marriages without officially endorsing or coming out against the practice. This would effectively leave the decision up to county clerks, and create a situation like the one that exists in MO now: where SSM is officially recongized by the state, but only select counties actually issue licenses. Barring this option:

3. The third possibility involves passing a new statute or a new constitutional amendment against SSM, possibly with an exception for existing marriages. If successful, this would make SSM illegal again. If anyone tried to challenge it, the courts would almost certainly point to the supreme court precedent and let it stand, at least for next 20 or 30 years until the SCOTUS ruling fades into the background like Baker largely has. Barring this:

4. Simply act as if nothing happened and continue enforcing the lower court ruling. Possibly pass an official statute allowing SSM to prevent rogue county clerks from refusing to issue licenses.


In short, a mess.