Breaking: Imperial County is denied standing in #Prop8 case

[FreeState]

Received from the court in email:

Docket Text:
FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. <7598965> (RP)

[meegbear]

1. Translation ....

[FreeState]

3. Imperial county has no standing to appeal the overturning of Prop 8

The 9th District Court is asking the CA State Supreme Court to decide if Yes on 8 has standing also

http://www.kron4.com/News/ArticleView/tabid/298/smid/1126/ArticleID/7818/reftab/64/t/Ninth%20Circuit%20Asks%20California%20Supreme%20Court%20for%20Help%20in%20Determining%20Who%20Can%20Appeal%20Prop%208/Default.aspx

SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) -- The three judge panel deciding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, is asking for help from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ninth Circuit justices Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Hawkins, and Randy Smith say they need direction from California's high court in determining who has standing to appeal a lower court's ruling throwing out Prop 8.

"Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional," the Ninth Circuit justices wrote. "As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below."

State officials have refused to appeal Judge Robert Walker's decision that Proposition Eight is unconstitutional. Supporter of the campaign to pass Prop 8 appealed the judge's decision to the Ninth Circuit. The justices hear oral arguments on the matter in early December.

Whatever the Ninth Circuit decides, it seems likely the case will eventually end up before the United States Supreme Court.

[meegbear]

4. The US Supreme Court?

say goodbye to same-sex marriage in California.

[FreeState]

5. No CA Supreme Court n/t

[meegbear]

7. ... it seems likely the case will eventually end up before the United States Supreme Court

[FreeState]

8. Yes but not the way most people think

More than likely the court will be asked to review for appeal no matter what. I doubt the court will take an appeal - but they will still hear the plea for one.

[MineralMan]

10. That's the crux of it.

No damage, no standing. In fact, it's hard to figure out who could be damaged in any real way by same-sex marriage. This is the key to the lock.

[wryter2000]

6. If I understand correctly

To appeal the decision to overthrow Prop H8, someone has to prove that they were harmed by the decision. That person or entity would have standing to bring an appeal. The court has ruled that Imperial County isn't harmed and can't appeal. My limited understanding of these things.

[FreeState]

11. Yes thats what it did

they also sent a request to the CA Supreme Court to see id its possible that state law gives Yes on 8 standing (it does not, and even if it did the state does not control federal litigation laws).

[closeupready]

2. Judicial fiat! Legislation from the bench! Unelected and unaccountable!

:sarcasm:

[rurallib]

12. unlike Citizen's United v. FEC

which was judicial restraint at its finest.

[xchrom]

9. recommend

[Xicano]

13. No Corpus Delicti = No Standing = No Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

n/t

[Starry Messenger]

14. k&r