• Source: AFER
  • Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Will Decide Virginia Stay Request

    Chief Justice John Roberts has agreed to allow the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a stay is justified in the Virginia same-sex marriage case.

    After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request of county clerk Michèle McQuigg to place a stay on its ruling that found Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, her attorneys asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Moments ago, the nation's high court responded -- as expected. 

    Acknowledging the request, Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered information to be filed by Monday at 5:00 PM. The Court could have granted the stay as requested, refused to grant the stay, or ignored the request and not responded. 

    This week, the Fourth Circuit confirmed that marriages in Virginia could begin next Thursday. That still holds, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise -- which is likely.

    The Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-gay Christian legal firm that represents McQuigg, stated Wednesday they indeed would seek a stay at the Supreme Court.

    The original case was filed last year as Bostic v. McDonnell, then, as Bostic v. Rainey, and now, as Bostic v. Schaefer. The request for a stay is McQuigg v. Bostic.

     

    UPDATE 08.17.14: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the US Supreme Court has issued every stay regarding same-sex marriage that has been requested of it. That was incorrect.

    Image by American Foundation for Equal Rights
    Hat tip: Joe Jervis

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Join the conversation on Facebook LIKE US!



    Get breaking news and updates! JOIN THE EMAIL LIST

    Showing 4 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2014-08-16 23:10:36 -0400
      This sentence, while nominally correct, is horribly misleading: “The Supreme Court has granted every stay request in a same-sex marriage case since its DOMA ruling last year.”

      They have issued only ONE stay, that being the only one requested. All other stays have been issued by lower courts in accordance with what they understand the expectations of SCOTUS to be. The Fourth Circuit did not follow in this.

      Further, to Dale K below: The standing issues are different between this case and the Prop 8 case. The clerk filed the initial challenge and was the defendant in the original case. She has automatic standing throughout the entire case. In California, the Constitution allowed standing for the creators of the proposition in the case that the state refused to defend it only while the case was in the state courts. They could not attain Article III standing based on the state law.

    • commented 2014-08-15 16:04:25 -0400
      “constitutional” marriage bans have been proven under oath in 30+ federal courtrooms to harm LGBT families, and have ZERO effect on all other Americans, ban or no ban.

      Stays are designed to limit harm to the courts’ losing party, in case they can still prove “harm” to their clients.

      As illegal marriage “laws” make their way to the floor of SCOTUS LGBT grave family injustices continue to be happen TO THE WINNERS.

      Ban supporters’ lack of legal standing to “defend” CA’s Flop 8 tells the only story: Antigays are unaffected by the stay being removed while LGBT couples now have reams of proof of harm, pouring in from around the nation.

      Justice delayed, is justice denied.

      And why?

      To coddle losers whose only point is “LGBTs are too icky to share OUR country with”…?

      ENOUGH PANDERING TO CONSTITUTION SHREDDERS.
      They are no more noble that traitors to the United States, anf everything we are supposed to stand for as a country.

      Lift the stays! They are no more “legal” than the “Constitutional” marriage bans they were conjured up to replace…

      ENOUGH.

    • commented 2014-08-15 15:13:00 -0400
      From my interpretation of the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision, even if the clerk has standing at the state court level, once the case reaches the federal courts, that clerk no long has standing. Only an appointed representative (Governor or Attorney General) of the state has legal standing in federal court cases about a state constitution. I think that was the argument used when SCOTUS ruled no standing (in prop 8)..

    • commented 2014-08-15 12:31:37 -0400
      “The Supreme Court has granted every stay request in a same-sex marriage case since its DOMA ruling last year.”

      This isn’t true: They’ve granted two stay requests (both from Utah) and rejected two (from Oregon and Pennsylvania). In the Utah cases, it was the state requesting the stays, and in the other two, it was county clerks who were not parties to the case requesting the stays.. Here, it’s a county clerk who IS a party to the case requesting the stay, not the state, so it’s anybody’s guess what the outcome will be.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: