Sure the Supreme Court found the only people with standing in the prop 8 case were the governor and attorney general of California and since they weren’t the ones bringing forth the case, their was no standing and also no ruling. They even tossed the ruling of the lower court, the ninth circuit, out because they had no standing either in their ruling.
The ninth circuit was the appellate court that found the constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional, so by throwing out that ruling prop 8 is still California law. California’s own constitution is very clear on this. In article three, section 3.5
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power: (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional; (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional; (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.
Soak that in real quick, yup. There is no appellate court decision anymore. The trial judge who first found prop 8 unconstitutional was Vaughn Walker all the way back in 2010. He is a U.S. District Court judge, which is not an appellate court, oops. That makes the prop still binding under their own constitutional rules. It begs the question when exactly some smart California lawyer is going to figure this out, and the wave of outrage when the gay lobby realized all the supreme court did was strip the whole thing down to the nuts and bolts and ship back the frame. Litigation will follow, or California will just ignore their own constitution, and then someone with standing will sue them over it, creating some other set of litigation to wade through for four or five years.
Not so fast. That article applies to administrative agencies. It also on its face, and legislative history (see Witkin; etc.), applies to state courts and state administrative agencies. County clerks are not state administrative agencies, nor are cities or counties. You could argue that state admin agencies would be bound by Prop. 8. Except that the loose language of section 3.5 referring to appelate courts, in context , does not refer to federal courts at all. It means to distinguish between state Superior Courts, which do not issue rulings with statewide significance, and state district Courts of Appeal (and Supreme Court), which do. Federal District Court rulings are not limited in this way; they do not apply only to, say, the Northern District of California. Unless you’ve got some specific holdings to the contrary, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Time will tell.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t call it wishful thinking, more a point of order. It is going to be latched on to eventually by someone and then will have to be sorted out….that process will not be quick. Now, I would think that the language implies any statewide or federal court of appeals would be good enough to overturn any piece of the constitution, but a vacation of a higher courts ruling probably doesn’t fulfill that. I await the interesting legal ramifications.
LikeLike
Well, BQ, the 9th Circuit lifted its stay this afternoon. State officials had already issued statewide instructions to clerks, so weddings started happening at least in SF and LA — the main plaintiffs in the case — marriages performed by the Attorney General in SF and the Mayor in LA. So, it didn’t take time very long to tell, as it turns out. Your section 3.5 argument was sort of a fantasy, but I’m glad to know from your follow-up that you were not being wishful. As for future litigation, we can both watch with great interest, and I happily join you in that!
LikeLike
Well that is only one of the many reasons I’m not a lawyer.
LikeLike
You might want to factor your misunderstanding of this issue and your black/white absolute pronouncements into future edicts, BQ. Things are way complexy out there….
LikeLike