Ninth Circuit Marriage Equality case again delayed for briefing

1
4

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Equality on Trial reports that Sevcik v. Sandoval (No.12-17668), the marriage equality case from Nevada before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is again delayed for briefing:

Briefing in the challenge to Nevada’s same-sex marriage ban has been delayed further. The new request for delay came from the defendants, who haven’t yet filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the request on December 20, allowing the brief to be filed 30 days from the date that order was issued.

Lambda Legal, who filed the case and brought the appeal on behalf of same-sex couples, filed their opening brief back in October, but the state and the Coalition for the Protection for Marriage, supporters of the marriage amendment who intervened in its defense, have requested several delays since then. The most recent order would have had them filing a brief on December 18, though now they have until late January.

An optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the last-served answering brief. A date for oral argument is not addressed in the Court's order.

Previous article(Update) ‘Culture Warrior Day’ at the U.S. Supreme Court
Next articleA counter-movement to anti-choice extremism
AZ BlueMeanie
The Blue Meanie is an Arizona citizen who wishes, for professional reasons, to remain anonymous when blogging about politics. Armed with a deep knowledge of the law, politics and public policy, as well as pen filled with all the colors stolen from Pepperland, the Blue Meanie’s mission is to pursue and prosecute the hypocrites, liars, and fools of politics and the media – which, in practical terms, is nearly all of them. Don’t even try to unmask him or he’ll seal you in a music-proof bubble and rendition you to Pepperland for a good face-stomping. Read blog posts by the infamous and prolific AZ Blue Meanie here.

1 COMMENT

  1. The bigots have run out of cover for their bigotry. Judge Shelby’s opinion in the Utah case clearly demolishes the arguments they’ve come up with so far, and they really haven’t come up with anything new. Heck, they’re just recycling the same old arguments they had for banning ‘miscegenation’. Those didn’t hold in 1967, they won’t hold today.

Comments are closed.