Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Parties agree that California Equality and the ACLU have complied with March discovery
orders, and Judge Walker proposes June 16th as the date for closing arguments, while
addressing remaining discovery issues.
Boies and Olson secure their place among the 2010 "Time 100."
Judge Walker orders California Equality and the ACLU to show cause why he should not cite
them for contempt over their failure to give Prop. 8 proponents private campaign
communications.
Prop. 8 proponents ask that Judge Walker keep the record of evidence open, and to cite No-
on-8 groups for contempt over their failure to produce campaign communications.
A 9th Circuit panel has dismissed the appeal by No-on-8 groups, and Judge Walker has
ordered Prop. 8 proponents to show cause why the record of evidence should not be closed.
On April 9th, parties filed opening briefs in Perry v. Schwarzenneger, No. 10-15649 (9th Cir.
Apr. 9, 2010).
Theodore Olson addressed a group of law students and answered their questions about the
case.
On the cover of the May issue of The Advocate. Chad Griffin, President of the American
Foundation For Equal Rights, stands out among "The Forty Under 40."
Judge Walker has granted a stay of his decision to sustain Judge Spero's discovery order,
pending appeal by Equality California and the ACLU
Judge Walker has upheld Magistrate Judge Spero's discovery order, which requires Equality
California and the ACLU to produce what they characterize as "internal" campaign
communications about Prop. 8.
03/22/10 NY Times:
Jordan Lorence is Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, and represents the Prop. 8
proponents. He told the NY Times that "there should not have been a trial.”
Judge Walker walked out on plaintiffs' attorney Steve Bomse as he argued against a
discovery order issued by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero.
Boies and Olson discuss the case during a NY Times interview. Matt Coles and David Levine
describe how Judge Walker might rule.
Attorneys on both sides submit their final briefs about legal conclusions the trial testimony
support.
Will we be able to watch a telecast of the closing arguments? A Court press release doesn't
end speculation.
Attorneys on opposing sides filed their last briefs just before midnight on February 26th.
The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed an amici
brief that bears comparison with this earlier brief.
News and commentary roundup on Day 12, the last day of the trial.
Here's my latest selection of news and article posts related to the trial.
1/14/10
1/13/10
Day 3 of the trial, and the U.S. Supreme Court grant of continuing stay of a trial broadcast.
1/12/10
Day 2 of the trial, and contretemps between 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinki and the
U.S. Judicial Conference.
1/11/10
Day 1 of the trial, and the U.S. Supreme Court order granting a temporary stay of the
planned YouTube webcast.
1/10/10
The Perry plaintiffs have responded to Prop. 8 proponents' emergency application for a stay
of Walker's order on a YouTube webcast of the trial. Here is a roundup of noteworthy
articles about the case.
01/09/10
Here is a post on the emergency appeal by Prop. 8 proponents with the U.S. Supreme
Court, and here is my selective roundup of commentary and news.
Prop. 8 proponents have filed an emergency petition to stay the planned broadcasting of the
Perry trial.
01/07/10 AP:
AP reporter Lisa Leff provides an insightful overview of the Perry case and discusses the trial
to start next week.
I link news on Judge Walker's decision to allow a delayed YouTube recording of the trial, and
to the "minute order."
Olson says that he doesn't trust "scholarly prognostications" about the risks of the lawsuit,
and Jennifer Pizer considers how it may affect the legal status of gays and lesbians.
Chuleenan Svetvilas, Anatomy of a complaint: How Hollywood activists seized control of the
fight for gay marriage, Cal. Law., Jan. 2010
Developments yesterday include the 9th Circuit's order against rehearing the discovery
dispute appeal en banc (post); another - possibly webcast- hearing in the lower court of the
latest version of that dispute (post); and plaintiffs' opposition to Imperial County's motion to
intervene (post).
I link to yesterday's filing of a letter by Prop. 8 proponents opposing use of cameras in the
trial.
Law professor Katherine Franke summarizes the latest developments, with scathing criticism
of Boies and Olson.
The 9th Circuit will consider whether to review en banc the discovery appeal brought by
Prop. 8 proponents.
The 9th Circuit Court may issue an order today to review en banc an appeal by Prop. 8
proponents of Judge Walker's discovery orders.
You will find links to commentary on the December 11th ruling by a 9th Circuit panel
upholding a First Amendment right of Prop. 8 proponents to withhold internal campaign
communications from plaintiffs.
This post concerns proposed findings of fact by attorneys on both sides, with the focus on
an expert of the Prop. 8 proponents.
Parties on both sides have filed trial briefs, and the plaintiffs have filed a witness list.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter undermine the
argument that a 9th Circuit has jurisdiction to review an appeal by Prop. 8 proponents, who
are seeking to overturn discovery orders?
A 9th Circuit panel has continued a stay of discovery orders on the grounds that Prop. 8
proponents are likely to prevail in their claim that the orders violate the First Amendment
protection of political speech.
12/02/09 Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry:
The ACLU has filed a letter brief supporting Prop. 8 proponents in their claim of a First
Amendment privilege for internal campaign documents that plaintiffs seek in discovery.
Link here to the oral argument held by a 9th Circuit panel over the discovery dispute.
A Ninth Circuit panel has ordered a December 1st oral argument on an expanded range of
issues presented by its emergency stay of Walker's discovery orders (one of which Judge
Spero issued on Walker's behalf.)
This is an exceptionally thoughtful overview of the case's legal issues and seminal
importance for defining "the place of gay people in society."
On November 20th, the 9th Circuit granted a stay of discovery orders. Parties have until 5
p.m. on November 23rd to file briefs.
California attorney Rick Xiao comments on Judge Walker's order today compelling document
production by the official Prop. 8 proponents.
11/06/09 Findlaw.com:
In the second part of his two-part series, constitutional scholar Vikram Amar offers narrow
and broad explanations of why it was "at least plausible" for Judge Walker to deny the
summary judgment motion of Prop. 8 proponents.
The Recorder reports on the appeal by Campaign for California of Judge Walker's order
denying its motion to intervene.
I link to two articles about continuing debate over the timing of the Perry case.
10/25/09 SF Chronicle:
This article concerns Judge Walker's denial of stay of his discovery order.
10/23/09 FindLaw.com:
In the first of a two-part series, constitutional scholar Vikram Amar, identifies what is
compelling about arguments that Baker v. Nelson represents a binding precedent for
summary judgment.
Here is my roundup of commentary and news on Judge Walker's denial of the summary
judgment motion by Prop. 8 proponents.
I include commentary on yesterday's motion by Charles Cooper to stay Judge Walker's 10/
01/09 discovery order pending appeal.
The Recorder profiles Charles Cooper, a lead attorney for the official Prop. 8 proponents.
Judge Walker asks parties what they think of a proposal to televise hearings in the case.
I link to two San Francisco articles, one about the subject of the August 19th hearing,
another about Judge Walker.
I link to Judge Walker's August 12th order, in which he tells attorneys that they must file
new case management statements by August 17th, detailing how the case will proceed.
I discuss the 08/07/09 filings in the case, including opposition by Boies and Olson to the
intervention motion of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lamda Legal, and the ACLU.
08/8/09 AP:
Boies and Olson filed oppositions to motions to intervene by San Francisco, several gay
rights groups, and the Campaign for California Familes.
Law professor Tobias Wolff addresses the controversy over the motion to intervene by three
gay rights groups, and offers a mea culpa.
The Recorder reports on the controversy over a motion by three gay rights groups to
intervene.
David Boies explains why he and Ted Olson have filed the lawsuit.
Law professor Douglas NeJaime contends that even with respect to the Perry case, "the
mainstreaming of gay rights is a good thing."
I link to an opinion article by Ann Rostow, who explains why the ACLU, the National Center
for Lesbian, and Lambda Legal have decided to intervene in the Perry case
I post a July 13th order by Judge Walker setting out deadlines for Boies and Olson to file
opposition to intervention by the ACLU and other organizations, and for these would-be
intervenors to respond.
Attorney Chris Geidner blogs on an "explosive" letter that the American Foundation for
Equal Rights sent to "three of the nation’s most established LGBT legal organizations."
I provide links to news reports on fast-tracking of the case by Judge Walker, and his goal of
creating a trial record for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Mercury News reports on attorney
Charles Cooper, who is representing the official Prop. 8 proponents.
I summarize an article in a legal newspaper, the San Francisco Daily Journal, whose
reporter thinks that Judge Walker's 06/30/09 order bears the imprint of legal struggles of
the civil rights movement.
I link to Judge Walker's 06/30/09 order, in which he granted intervenor status to Yes on 8,
and said that he is inclined not to grant a preliminary injunction but to proceed
"expeditiously" to a trial on the federal constitutionality of Prop. 8. I also link to legal and
non-legal news articles.
UnitetheFight.org provides an overview of the case, including an interview with one of the
plaintiff attorneys, Theodore Boutrous.
Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor said that Judge Vaughn Walker
may not grant the motion for a preliminary injunction, but that Boies and Olson may
succeed in their ultimate goal of review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On the other hand, he
said that "it's not inconceivable the courts may think it's too soon for the federal courts to
weigh in and settle the matter one way or the other.''
A group of gay rights and legal organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union,
GLAD and Lambda Legal [official websites], have cautioned against pursuing federal court
action [statement, PDF] because "the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far
ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states."
If the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, these
groups fear that it could take years before the Court reversed itself, just as it took 17 years
for the Court, in Romer v. Evans, to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court
ruling that upheld Georgia's sodomy law. And they fear the consequences of a comparable
delay. The delay of 17 years "was fast for the Supreme Court. And during that time, many
[LGBT] Americans lost jobs, lost custody of their children and suffered other harms because
the Bowers decision was taken as a license to discriminate against us."