CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Brown Nominates Goodwin Liu To CA Sup Ct!

Charles Dharapak / AP Photo

Goodwin Liu, 40, was rejected by a Republican United States Senate filibuster for a coveted position on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but has received a pretty nice consolation prize: a nomination by Governor Jerry Brown to the California State Supreme Court (from which he could still be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court before he's 50).

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Liu, a graduate of Yale Law School, is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. He was born in Georgia, grew up in Sacramento and has a history of public service.

“I’m deeply honored by Gov. Brown’s nomination and look forward to the opportunity to serve the people of California on our state’s highest court,” Liu said in a statement.

Before joining the Berkeley Law faculty in 2003, Liu was an appellate litigator at O'Melveny & Myers in Washington. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He also served as special assistant to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and as senior program officer for higher education at the Corporation for National Service (AmeriCorps).

Brown has forwarded Liu’s name to the State Bar’s Commission of Judicial Nominees Evaluation. The appointment will not become final until the Commission on Judicial Appointments -- consisting of state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal -- confirms the nomination.

Liu will replace Associate Justice Carlos Moreno, who retired from the court earlier this year.

Justice Moreno was a very strong advocate for the LGBT community, voting with 4-3 majority to end marriage discrimination in California's landmark In Re Marriage cases in 2008 and was the lone dissenter in 2009's California Supreme Court decision which upheld Proposition 8 as not violating the California constitution.

Goodwin Liu has previously expressed his belief that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional so it will be interesting to see if he can get confirmed in time to participate in the case now before the case as to whether the heterosexual supremacist supporters of Proposition 8 have legal standing to defend it in court when the elected representatives of the people of California have decided not to defend a voter-approved ballot measure.

Another interesting feature that Liu, if confirmed will produce a court with an Asian American majority and no Black or Latino members, in a state which has Latino plurality in the population. Things that make you go Hmmmmmm! That being said, Liu is a great choice, since he can't get through the Senate to a federal judgeship while Republicans have more than 40 votes and no compunctions about filibustering extremely qualified judges purely based on ideology, a state supreme court seat is fantastic.

BREAKING: CA Sup Ct Agrees To Decide Standing Question

The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to decide whether Proposition 8 proponents have standing to defend the anti-gay marriage initiative in the federal lawsuit of Perry v. Schwarzenegger which is currently pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Specifically, the Court will decide the question:

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

If the State Supreme Court rules they DO NOT have standing, the 9th Circuit panel may dismiss the lawsuit immediately as moot, which would lead to marriage equality being legal in California again. If the State Supreme Court rules that they DO have standing (a more likely result) then the 9th Circuit will have to decide the case, which they could do on the merits of the claim that Proposition 8 violates a federal constitutional right to marry. That decision could be appealed to the US Supreme Court and would have national implications.

According to Chris Geidner, the State High Court issued a relatively brisk briefing schedule:

The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011.  The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.  A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.

Oral arguments are scheduled for "as early as September 2011" and this is significant because the Court must issue a written ruling within 90 days of an oral argument or else it does not get paid, which would probably mean the 9th Circuit would be getting Perry v. Schwarzenegger back in early 2012. So, basically a year has been added to the time in which marriage equality could be decided by a court ruling in California.