In Perry v. Brown, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the Ninth Circuit, reasoned that California’s Proposition 8 violated the federal Equal Protection Clause because it took the right to marry away from same-sex couples. California, unlike any other state, allowed same-sex couples to marry and then withdrew that right. According to the Perry Court, the fact that California took marriage away from same-sex couples is critical to the constitutional analysis and thus to the outcome. Since California is the only state to have first granted and then withdrawn the right to marry, the Court says several times, the decision is only applicable to California.
Is the Court right about that? The answer to that question makes an enormous difference. As I’ll discuss at the end of this comment, if Perry really only applies to California, it is a far less compelling case for Supreme Court review. Moreover, even though the Court has taken the case, the resulting decision could well be quite limited no matter which way it comes out. More on that later. First, on to the central question to which this comment is addressed: Is the Perry decision really limited to California?
Discussion of the strategic choices in building an evidentiary record of expert testimony in Windsor's challenged to DOMA.
Using San Fransisco's joining as a plaintiff in Perry for marriage equality as a case study, the author urges other public law offices to challenge laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Scholars discuss the most significant immigration-related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, their ramifications, and what to expect in 2020.
"It's important to note that scholars have long observed that political discourse and political events can contribute to the frequency of bias incidents. In fact, this phenomenon has a name today. It's called the Trump Effect."