BREAKING: Victory for marriage equality — SCOTUS dismisses same-sex marriage appeals

No Supreme Court observer predicted this: the U.S. Supreme Court this morning dismissed the appeals on same-sex marriage pending before the Court, allowing full marriage equality to go into effect in the the Circuits from which those appeals were pending.

This is a major civil rights victory for marriage equality, and sends a clear signal to other courts in which same-sex marriage cases are pending as to how those courts should rule. Expect a quick succession of opinions from other courts, including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for Arizona.

USA Today reports, Supreme Court lets gay marriage expand to 30 states:

The Supreme Court refused to get involved in the national debate over same-sex marriage Thursday, leaving intact lower court rulings that will legalize the practice in 11 additional states.

The unexpected decision by the justices, announced without further explanation, immediately affects five states in which federal appeals courts had struck down bans against gay marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Utah.

It also will bring along six other states located in the judicial circuits overseen by those appellate courts: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming.

The action will bring to 30 the number of states where gays and lesbians can marry. Appeals courts in Cincinnati and San Francisco are considering cases that could expand that number further, presuming the Supreme Court remains outside the legal fray.

Most court-watchers had predicted the justices would hear one or more cases this term and issue a verdict with nationwide implications by next June. But the justices, perhaps sensing that the country is headed toward legalizing gay marriage without their involvement, chose to deny states’ appeals.

* * *

The cases that had been under consideration included those from three federal appeals courts:

• A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled 2-1 in June and July that same-sex couples in Utah and Oklahoma have “the same fundamental right” to marry as heterosexuals.

• A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 in July that gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry that is paramount to state marriage laws.

• A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declared unanimously last month that gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin threaten “the welfare of American children.”

UPDATE: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports, Many more same-sex marriages soon, but where? (UPDATED):

UPDATE 1:17 p.m. Within hours after the Supreme Court denied review in these cases, the Fourth Circuit Court put its ruling in the Virginia case into immediate effect (see here) and the Tenth Circuit Court did the same in its rulings in both the Oklahoma and Utah cases (see orders here and here).  The Seventh Circuit Court has yet to act.

————–

Analysis

In seven one-line orders, released without explanation and with no report on how any Justice voted, the Court surprisingly refused to review any same-sex marriage case now before it and, in the process, prepared to lift a series of orders that had delayed such marriages while the issue remained in the Court.   Almost no one had expected that to happen.

* * *

[F]our other circuits — the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh — are currently considering the constitutionality of same-sex marriages.  Of those, the Ninth Circuit — which had earlier struck down California’s famous “Proposition 8″ ban and uses a very rigorous test of laws against gay equality — is considered most likely to strike down state bans.  If that happens, it would add five more states to the marriages-allowed column (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada), which would bring the national total to thirty-five.

The reaction in those four circuits could depend upon how they interpret what the Supreme Court did on Monday.

If the Court is not likely to uphold any state ban, either on same-sex marriage in the first place or recognition of existing such marriage, lower courts may see good reason to fall in line.  The Court’s actions, however, do not set any precedent, so lower courts are technically free to go ahead and decide as they otherwise would.