Appeals Court Rules Puerto Rico Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Decimates Lower Court Ruling
Federal Appeals Court Issues Strongly-Worded Ruling Against Lower Court Judge
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down a decision overturning a lower court’s ruling that had found Puerto Rico‘s ban on same-sex marriage to be constitutional. In early March a federal judge ludicrously decided that because the U.S. territory was not an incorporated territory, the U.S. Constitution was to be applied differently, despite previous rulings, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell.
Same-sex marriage once again is constitutional in Puerto Rico.
Today’s ruling clearly mocks the decision of the lower court judge, U.S. District Court Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez, and does not mince words in doing so.
“The district court’s ruling errs in so many respects that it is hard to know where to begin,†the 1st Circuit Court ruling begins.
There’s plenty of legalese below, but suffice to say that the federal appeals court, as Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed notes, “stated unambiguously that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages is unconstitutional, throwing a federal judge off a case after the judge had ruled in March that the ban was still in effect.”
The ruling can be read at Equality Case Files.
Some excerpts:
“In any event, for present purposes we need not gild the lily,” the 1st Circuit Court’s ruling states. “Our prior mandate was clear: Upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Response Pursuant to Court Order filed June 26, 2015, we vacate the district court’s Judgment in this case and remand the matter for further consider in light of Obergefell . . . . We agree with the parties’ joint position that the ban is unconstitutional. Mandate to issue forthwith.”
The 1st Circuit adds, “the district court both misconstrued that right and directly contradicted our mandate. And it compounded its error (and signaled a lack of confidence in its actions), by failing to enter a final judgment to enable an appeal in ordinary course. Error of this type is not so easily insulated from review. This court may employ mandamus jurisdiction when a district court has misconstrued or otherwise failed to effectuate a mandate issued by this court.”
Â
Â
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.