It was a busy day today in the legal arena concerning same-sex marriage.
The United States Supreme Court today took no action on four appeals from a lower court ruling that rejected same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that challenged Louisiana's ban on marriage equality.
A federal trial judge in South Dakota declared that state's marriage ban to be unconstitutional but put the ruling on hold pending the state's appeal.
The most-watched case involved the one from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses the four states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The appeals court ruled last November that same-sex marriage was not a right under terms of the United States Constitution.
It was expected that when the Supreme Court met in conference today that the justices would agree to review the Sixth Circuit's decision. They did not but they are scheduled to confer again on Friday. They may grant review at that time.
It's almost inconceivable that the Supreme Court would not deal with the Sixth Circuit's decision somehow. Whenever there is a split among appeals courts on a major legal issue, the Supreme Court steps in to resolve the conflict. In this instance, four appeals courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and one has rejected it.
If the Supreme Court were to review the marriage issue, the justices would hear oral argument from both sides and then issue a ruling by June 30. Its ruling would apply nationwide.
Also at the Supreme Court today, the justices rejected outright a plea by a same-sex couple to set aside Louisiana law stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. The justices did not say why they refused to hear the case.
In all likelihood, the justices may have felt that the plea was premature. The couple appealed directly from the ruling of a federal trial judge, rather than going through the normal appeals channels.
In South Dakota, a federal trial judge ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States Constitution's provision of equal protection.
"Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," District Court Judge Karen Schreier wrote today.
The state said it plans to appeal the ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. That body has yet to address the issue of same-sex marriage.
The United States Supreme Court today took no action on four appeals from a lower court ruling that rejected same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that challenged Louisiana's ban on marriage equality.
A federal trial judge in South Dakota declared that state's marriage ban to be unconstitutional but put the ruling on hold pending the state's appeal.
The most-watched case involved the one from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses the four states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The appeals court ruled last November that same-sex marriage was not a right under terms of the United States Constitution.
It was expected that when the Supreme Court met in conference today that the justices would agree to review the Sixth Circuit's decision. They did not but they are scheduled to confer again on Friday. They may grant review at that time.
It's almost inconceivable that the Supreme Court would not deal with the Sixth Circuit's decision somehow. Whenever there is a split among appeals courts on a major legal issue, the Supreme Court steps in to resolve the conflict. In this instance, four appeals courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and one has rejected it.
If the Supreme Court were to review the marriage issue, the justices would hear oral argument from both sides and then issue a ruling by June 30. Its ruling would apply nationwide.
Also at the Supreme Court today, the justices rejected outright a plea by a same-sex couple to set aside Louisiana law stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. The justices did not say why they refused to hear the case.
In all likelihood, the justices may have felt that the plea was premature. The couple appealed directly from the ruling of a federal trial judge, rather than going through the normal appeals channels.
In South Dakota, a federal trial judge ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States Constitution's provision of equal protection.
"Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry. South Dakota deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," District Court Judge Karen Schreier wrote today.
The state said it plans to appeal the ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. That body has yet to address the issue of same-sex marriage.