Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 4 refused to block same-sex marriages in Oregon pending an appeal of a federal court decision striking down that state's ban.
The court's action stood in contrast to its decision in January, when it issued a stay in a separate appeal of a federal district court decision invalidating Utah's same-sex marriage ban. The state's appeal in that case,'Herbert v. Kitchen,'is awaiting a decision following arguments in April before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The justices issued their decision in the Oregon case without comment and after Justice Anthony Kennedy referred the application for a stay to the full court. Unlike Utah's stay request, which was sought by the state attorney general, the Oregon request came from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an organization opposed to same-sex marriages.
NOM had tried unsuccessfully to intervene in the lower court case,'Geiger v. Kitzhaber, after the Oregon attorney general declined to defend the same-sex marriage ban. U.S. District Judge Michael McShane and the Ninth Circuit had rejected NOM's request for a stay pending its appeal of the denial of intervention.
NOM, represented by John Eastman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told the justices that, since the Utah stay had been granted, “a half-dozen other federal district courts have rendered judgments holding that the long-standing definition of marriage is unconstitutional but, in each case, the judgments have been stayed pending appeal, either by the district court itself or by the court of appeals.”
Hundreds of same-sex marriage couples reportedly have obtained marriage licenses since McShane's May 19 decision holding the state ban unconstitutional.
Marcia Coyle writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling publication of The Matrimonial Strategist. She can be reached at'[email protected].
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 4 refused to block same-sex marriages in Oregon pending an appeal of a federal court decision striking down that state's ban.
The court's action stood in contrast to its decision in January, when it issued a stay in a separate appeal of a federal district court decision invalidating Utah's same-sex marriage ban. The state's appeal in that case,'Herbert v. Kitchen,'is awaiting a decision following arguments in April before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The justices issued their decision in the Oregon case without comment and after Justice Anthony Kennedy referred the application for a stay to the full court. Unlike Utah's stay request, which was sought by the state attorney general, the Oregon request came from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an organization opposed to same-sex marriages.
NOM had tried unsuccessfully to intervene in the lower court case,'Geiger v. Kitzhaber, after the Oregon attorney general declined to defend the same-sex marriage ban. U.S. District Judge Michael McShane and the Ninth Circuit had rejected NOM's request for a stay pending its appeal of the denial of intervention.
NOM, represented by John Eastman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told the justices that, since the Utah stay had been granted, “a half-dozen other federal district courts have rendered judgments holding that the long-standing definition of marriage is unconstitutional but, in each case, the judgments have been stayed pending appeal, either by the district court itself or by the court of appeals.”
Hundreds of same-sex marriage couples reportedly have obtained marriage licenses since McShane's May 19 decision holding the state ban unconstitutional.
Marcia Coyle writes for The National Law Journal, an ALM sibling publication of The Matrimonial Strategist. She can be reached at'[email protected].
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.