this site seems to have a fairly good breakdown, and includes some recent updates on the Nevada and Virginia cases (so I'm hoping that mean's it's keeping itself fairly up-to-date in all cases). http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/ Some of the bigger cases (in the sense that they are likely to get to SCOTUS first and have a most sweeping impact) will be the Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia cases. None of them have gone to their respective circuit courts yet, although I believe the Utah and Oklahoma cases are scheduled for April. To my knowledge, there is no schedule yet for the Nevada case which advances now with nobody defending it (the AG and Governor of Nevada withdrew their defense recently). I'm not exactly an expert, but based on recent rulings in the 10th circuit appeals court, this case is almost certainly going to rule in favor of same-sex marriage once it is reviewed, and might advance quickly given that there is no need for reviewing state briefs or hearings. Virginia's case is advancing to their circuit court of appeals, also without defense by the AG and Governor (I believe it is the county clerks office which is defending it right now). The team who won the Windsor case has just signed up to take this case as it advances to the supreme court. I'll give Kentucky a mention as well as a recent case, although its case is limited to the scope of recognizing marriages performed out-of-state. Recently this one was ruled upon by a circuit court judge in favor of same-sex couples, and although the scope was limited, a new suit has been brought up which is broader. Ohio has also issued rulings that are narrow in scope (limited to death-certificates and the like). And there are bunches of other cases you can read up on, but I suspect the cases that will matter most nationally will be among Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, given their broad scope and likelihood of getting to the supreme court first. I think technically Nevada is the oldest case, although it might not go past the appeals court without a defense (not sure how that works... the AG and governor might have completely dropped it, or they might just be waiting for the appeals court to rule against them before they pick up the defense and go to SCOTUS). Regardless of what happens in Nevada, there's little chance of Utah and Oklahoma dropping their cases, and I don't think the Windsor team would sign up for Virginia if they didn't think it was going all the way, so it will be among those 3 or 4 that makes it there first.
A related point: I do not doubt that the Supreme Court has discussed these cases offline, and I do not doubt that they realize they are intractably split along strict party and ideological lines. And five of the 9 justices are Catholics, which becomes important, because: 1) The Supreme Court is sure to be very reluctant to hear any of these cases, since it would be very difficult to rule on any of them narrowly. The core legal question is the same in all of them: is this a right or not? Not easy for them to rule that, well, sort of, maybe, sometimes, depending. Certainly Scalia would wish a sweeping, unambiguous anti-gay ruling if he could possibly swing it, but 2) They have to be painfully aware that these cases are going to reach the circuit courts first, and all indications are that the circuit courts are going to bless these unions wholeheartedly. I note here that Virginia is in the 4th circuit, Kentucky in the 6th, Utah and Oklahoma in the 10th, Nevada in the 9th. Most typically, the Supreme Court takes a case when the circuit courts are split, so there is no single precedent for other courts to use as a guideline. So it may be that none of these cases ever goes all the way. I know that Scalia has oversight of the 5th circuit. This might be why none of these cases is being argued in the 5th circuit...
Hmm, this doesn't strike me as the type of case that SCOTUS would not take, even if the courts were not split. For example, scotus put a Stay on the decision in Utah, something that almost never happens unless SCOTUS plans on hearing the case. They may be reluctant, but I don't think that they have much choice.... maybe a choice to slow things down a bit, but it's only a matter of time. A ruling on those cases would certainly have to be definitive on the question, but the effect might not be entirely sweeping. Windors would still hold for federal purposes if a broader right was not recognized. So if the majority of the court is against overturning state bans, they don't have to be reluctant in taking the case since that does nothing to the effect of the Windsor ruling. The only "sweeping" change on the table is the potential for overturning state bans, and I can see why they are reluctant and would want to slow things down. As you pointed out, the court does not like to make sweeping changes, and tries to rule as narrowly as possible. Issues like this become better accepted as more time passes, more information becomes available as time goes on, studies are conducted, and lower courts continue to weigh the arguments. So IF the majority of the court is in favor of striking down the bans, I would anticipate them stalling for as long as possible... but I don't see it that way if the majority would uphold state bans. Also consider the likelihood that even if all circuit courts rule the same way, it may be with different rational. The 9th, for example, is poised to rule using heightened scrutiny... something what would have pretty dramatic impact on precedent in the circuit, and would likely be in conflict with the level of scrutiny applied in other circuits. Seems to me that there are going to be conflicts for SCOTUS to grapple with one way or the other on this one. I personally don't think that there's much question in how they will rule, 5 of the justices being Catholic not withstanding. Authors of the majority opinion in Windsor went out of their way in the language and rational they used, which has since been read the same way by lower courts since. The Windsor case could have been ruled on simply on the basis of states rights alone, and have been left at that. But they went out of their way to invoke equal protection, out of their way to note that even states have limits on their right to define marriage even though that wasn't a topic of the case, and out of their way to use powerful language of the humiliation and dignity at stake for involved parties. They may not have wanted the lower courts to move as fast as they are, but I'm pretty sure that they knew full well what they were doing when they chose to use the language that they did. It will be interesting to see how this all works out, but I'm obviously a little biased in how I think it will
These tea leaves are harder for me to read. Yes, the language in Windsor was clear. However, the decision was 5-4 with some powerful dissenting opinions. And they managed to make a "non-decision decision" on the prop 8 case, which they obviously didn't have to do. The appeals court certainly never noticed the "standing" issue. So if they do start taking these cases, even if for clarifying rather than sweeping purposes, I don't see any change from th 5-4 margins. I may be short-sighted, but I just can't see any member of the "bloc of four" going against both their religious and their political ideologies. Not for something as relatively trivial as equal protection of the law. The stay Sotomayor put on the Kitchen v. Herbert case wasn't pending SCOTUS taking the case, but rather pending the 10th circuit hearing it. If the 10th circuit court is confidently expected to allow marriages, why put a stay on it? Of course, my interest is a little less vested than yours, a bit more abstract. I am persuaded that a policy that helps none while harming some is a bad policy. But I'm aware that imaginary harm can hurt as bad as psychosomatic pain.
Michigan also has a challenge that will be heard this month at the district level (it was supposed to be heard earlier, but in October 2013 the judge pushed it back to February 25th, 2014.)
(emphasis added) The bolded statement is untrue. The 9th Circuit actually delayed hearing the Prop 8 case because of the standing issue. They asked the Supreme Court of California to weigh in on it, and the case only proceeded after the 9th received California's response. Well, I have trouble imagining that any of the majority in the Windsor case would 'switch sides', but it could happen; Kennedy could decide to put 'states' rights above 'equal protection'. I agree, it's likely to be a split decision, whichever way it goes. Good question. I'm not sure I have an answer. Well, the Court didn't think the harm was 'imaginary' when they decided the Windsor case. I can't see them suddenly deciding that the experience of harm at the hands of the state is imaginary.
Uh, yes, one would assume that if I'm asking for cases in a gay & lesbian rights forum, I might be asking for cases relevant to gay & lesbian rights. But I could have been more explicit, I suppose.
OK, thanks. I didn't follow it that closely, I only know that the 9th circuit heard the case rather than dismissing it on grounds of standing. If I were the lawyer for either side, I would very carefully construct my argument so as to poke Kennedy's known buttons. This would be a Kennedy-only case, the others factoring one another out. Again, I am taking too much for granted. Sorry. What I meant to say was that a policy that harms gays while helping nobody is a bad policy, and the imaginary harm suffered by bigots seems as excruciating to them as, say, the foot pain suffered by someone with an amputated foot.
Ohio over birth certificates.....OH already recognizes SSM on death certificates.... so should be a slam-dunk, given a precedent.
I might be reading too much into the prop 8 non-decision decision, but to me this is almost just as important. Windsor recognized a real harm caused to same-sex couples, while Prop 8's non-decision decision that there was no standing was, in effect, a ruling that proponents of the state law could not establish that they suffered a harm from same-sex marriages. That can be an important point when the question is weighed by the lower courts about whether or not the state has a legitimate state interest at stake that justifies explicit bans not only on Marriage, but also on Civil Unions. If nothing else, I think it's highly likely that bans that forbid even civil unions will be struck down under the rational of the Romer case. As for the Stay that Sotomayor put on the decision, from what I've read, it is highly unusual for SCOTUS to override a decision by the appeals court to not issue a stay and that it's almost always only done when they plan on hearing the case. It is also my understanding that stays of this kind are NOT put in place that last longer than the next appeals ruling (i.e. until it gets to SCOTUS). For two reasons, first if the appeals court upholds the law, then there is no stay to be issued. Secondly, the appeals court can change the scope of the decision, and can change what parts go into effect and when. They would, in effect, be issuing a stay on an unknown decision which is unnecessary when they can simply issue a new stay (or not) when the final decision comes out of the appeals court. I could be wrong, but this is just what I read. As for WHY they issued the stay, no idea. The 10th circuit could easily have spoken for themselves about how they were likely to rule, and they declined to issue the stay. They didn't need Sotomayor to step in on their behalf for that. It was issued for another reason (my guess is that just just wanted more order to the process and to slow down some of the blow-back).
