Tag Archives: Court: 9th Circuit

Philadelphia Gay News: “The suit was filed against the state of California, but the governor and attorney general refused to defend Prop. 8 in court. A coalition of religious groups, led by Christian legal agency Alliance Defense Fund, took over the case and must now prove to the appeals court that they would be directly harmed if marriage equality was legal in California.”

San Francisco Bay Times: ‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the 9th Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call,’ stated pro-Prop 8 conservative Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell]. ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun.’”

SonoranNews.com: “Representing the proponents of Prop. 8, Attorney [Brian Raum] of the Alliance Defense Fund issued a statement afterward calling the court’s ruling ‘disappointing’ and said, ‘Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process.’ He said the majority of voters ‘simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage . . . imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.’”

Law.com: “A three-year-old federal law that makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday . . . A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with [Xavier Alvarez] in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there’s no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.” USA v. Alvarez, No. 08-50345 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010)

San Francisco Chronicle: “Hardly anyone noticed when the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1997 that it had ‘grave doubts’ that the sponsors of a ballot measure – in that case, an English-only initiative for government agencies in Arizona – had the right to defend the law in federal court. Now that case could determine the future of same-sex marriage in California.”

Rick Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, writing at the American Constitution Society blog: “I believe caution is in order, and that proponents and opponents of gay marriage should read very little into the Ninth Circuit’s order as to how that court is likely to decide the Proposition 8 case. But the Ninth Circuit’s decision to issue a stay could increase the chances that the Supreme Court ultimately will side with gay marriage supporters . . . This case already has had more than its share of twists and turns. But for those who want to predict what will happen in the appellate courts, there’s really very little to go on so far. Certainly we should not rely on a procedural order containing no written rationale offered by a different set of decisionmakers than the judges who will decide the merits of the appeal.”

Washington Post: “[The 9th Circuit's decision] came as a huge disappointment to the activists who sought to have Prop 8 declared unconstitutional. But it was a relief for the White House, meaning that a potentially divisive issue would not play out during the fall midterm elections. Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who is close with top White House officials, said Obama has ‘suffered through a season of distractions. He didn’t need one more distraction.’”

“From the dawn of the American Revolution, which was preached from the pulpits, to the abolitionist preachers who rallied the antislavery cause, to the religious leaders who inspired the civil rights movement, religion and morality have always played a prominent and entirely proper role in American political life,’ he wrote.”

National Review Online editorial: “In other words, it’s not simply that Walker was overriding the votes of the more than 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8. He also tried to make himself essentially a one-man federal judiciary by preventing meaningful review of his ruling by the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court . . . We won’t venture a prediction here whether the Supreme Court will ultimately misinterpret the Constitution and invent a right to same-sex marriage. But under the orderly appellate review that the Ninth Circuit order allows, we hope very much that Walker endures a fourth and final reversal.”

The Christian Institute: “[T]he Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a religious liberty organisation which is involved in the case, welcomed the ruling. ADF’s [Jim Campbell] said: ‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the Ninth Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call.’”

Michael Foust reports at Baptist Press: “‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the Ninth Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call,’ said [Jim Campbell], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is involved in the case. ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun.’”

OneNewsNow: “‘Refusing to stay the decision only created more legal confusion surrounding any sort of unions that would have been created while the appeal was pending,’ [ADF Attorney Daniel Blomberg] explains, ‘so the Ninth Circuit clearly made the right call . . . This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

News By the Second: “Governor Schwarzenegger has issued a statement in support of overturning Prop 8 and does not believe the state should pursue an appeal. Private groups, such as the Alliance Defense Fund and the ProtectMarriage.com organization who sponsored the bill, are continuing to fight to keep same-sex marriage from becoming legal.”

Washington Blade: ‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ said [Jim Campbell], litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending . . . ADF and the rest of the legal team is confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Catholic News Agency: “ADF litigation staff counsel [Jim Campbell] added that it ‘made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the 9th Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call.’”

SCOTUSblog: “The Ninth Circuit Court on Tuesday morning ordered an expedited review of a second appeal on California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage — a plea by local officials in Imperial County, Calif., to enter the case in order to defend the ballot measure’s constitutionality. The motions panel of the Circuit Court, in a two-page order, set the county’s appeal to be heard at argument along with the appeal by the backers of Proposition 8 — that is, during the week of Dec. 6. The written briefing schedule will be the same in both cases, concluding on Nov. 1.”

Christian Today: “The conservative and religious communities are fighting for the right to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage – rather than allowing legislature or the courts to rule on the issue. At the same time, they are also trying to defend their religious liberties.”

Claudia Cowan writing at Fox News Insider: “[Walker] said an appeal may hinge on getting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown to join the defense team, which is highly unlikely . . . ‘If the Prop 8 proponents don’t have standing, that means that millions of California voters have no one to represent or defend them . . . so we feel very confident about this standing issue and believe, at the end of the day, the 9th Circuit is going to agree that we do have standing,’ says [Austin Nimocks], with the Alliance Defense Fund.”

“. . . [D]espite their massive advantage in resources, Olson and Boies have lost to Cooper and his team on every issue that has been decided by any court other than Walker’s.”

“This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.”

Dennis Prager writing at Townhall: “Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate — even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting . . . ”

The Desert Sun: “‘I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it’s gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed,’ said [Douglas Napier], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm. ‘Rather than have this kind of ping-pong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it’s better to have this kind of decision,’ he said.”

The Orange County Register (Total Buzz): ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending,’ said [Jim Campbell] of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is helping defend Prop. 8.”

Worthy News: “‘It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ said Alliance Defense Fund’s Litigation Staff counsel [Jim Campbell]. ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun. ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

California Beat: “The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group which opposes same-sex marriage, said the decision was ‘clearly the right call.’ ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending,’ said attorney [Jim Campbell] in a statement posted to the group’s website.”

LifeSiteNews: “The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Attorney General Jerry Brown are named in the case as defendants, but both declined to defend the law and embraced Walker’s decision. Therefore, the Alliance Defense Fund and other attorneys that represented Prop. 8 during Walker’s 13-day trial have to convince the court that they can actually represent the state of California in an appeal, when the named defendants have refused to take up the case.”

Los Angeles Times: “The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian liberty group that is helping finance the defense of Proposition 8, called the 9th Circuit’s decision ‘clearly the right call.’ ‘Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending,’ said [Jim Campbell], the fund’s litigation counsel.”

USA Today / Faith & Reason: “The Alliance Defense Fund, part of the Prop8 legal support, is delighted with the ruling. It’s press release says, ‘This case has just begun. ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Associated Press: “‘I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it’s gone through the complete appellate process really prevailed,’ said [Douglas Napier], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm. ‘Rather than have this kind of pingpong effect of having the decision overturned, appealed and then overturned again, it’s better to have this kind of decision,’ he said.”

Daily Mail (UK): “‘I think the basic notion that this case is not final until it’s gone through the complete appellate process,’ said [Douglas Napier], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal firm.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “‘This is the right thing to do, and it makes things less chaotic and uncertain,’ said [Douglas Napier], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘The status quo is going to be maintained until this issue is resolved.’”

Mercury News: “[Douglas Napier], a senior lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups defending the law, said they have the right to press the appeal. ‘We have standing,’ he said. ‘The people of California shouldn’t lose by a forfeit because the governor refused to do his job.’”

Jonathan H. Adler writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “I think that the defenders of Proposition 8 do have standing to appeal the decision, just as they had standing to intervene, and that even if they do not, the officials of Imperial County would, and should have been permitted to intervene. Although I generally support a rather narrow view of standing, I largely agree with Michael Dorf that it would be anomalous were state officials able to effectively nullify state ballot initiatives simply by refusing to defend such initiatives in Court. Further, I think the interest of the proposition’s defenders on appeal is equivalent to that of an initiative’s sponsors who could file suit to ensure their initiative appears on the ballot in the first place.”

San Mateo County Daily Journal: “Same-sex marriage may be a win for the heart, but local business hope it also proves to be a boon to the pocketbook when a whole new demographic begins saying I do to flowers, cakes and rings.”

Los Angeles Times / L.A. Now: “The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office in Norwalk will be staying open late Wednesday to accommodate an expected rush in gay marriages.”

ChristianWebNews: “ADF Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell]: ‘The Protectmarriage.com legal team will appeal immediately to the 9th Circuit to stay the trial court’s decision until this case is concluded. This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Oakland Tribune editorial: “It would be a shame if the appeals court did not grant standing to the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports Prop. 8 and was a party that tried the case in Walker’s court. Walker delayed his stay on allowing same-sex marriage only until 5 p.m. Wednesday. If an appeal were denied due to lack of standing, same-sex marriage would be allowed at that time. That is hardly the best way to advance a major social and legal reform.”

L.A. Watts Times: “[Jim Campbell], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who participated in the defense in the San Francisco case, tells the L.A. Watts Times that the Supreme Court doesn’t hear a case unless it decides to do so, but ‘one thing’s for sure: Whoever loses before the Ninth Circuit (court) will ask the Supreme Court to hear this case.’”

SCOTUSblog: “California’s Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., formally notified the Ninth Circuit Court Friday night that the state will not appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. That position, along with a flurry of other filings in the Circuit Court, puts new emphasis on a basic issue: can anyone else carry on the case? And that comes down mainly to a question of state law: who speaks for California, legally? . . . Adding another element to the controversy over who may appeal is a claim by the local governing body of Imperial County, Calif., and its marriage licensing officer that they have their own, independent right to pursue an appeal. In a filing Friday in their own, related case pending in the Circuit Court, they asked to be allowed to support the Proposition 8 backers’ plea for postponement.”

Erwin Chemerinsky writing in the Los Angeles Times: “Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ The Supreme Court long has held that in order to meet this requirement, a person or group pursuing legal action must have standing, a status conferred only on those who have suffered a direct, concrete injury. An ideological objection to a government action, no matter how strongly felt, is insufficient for standing.”

Christian Science Monitor: “Do proponents of Proposition 8, California’s gay-marriage ban, have any legal standing to appeal last week’s federal court ruling declaring it unconstitutional? . . . ‘[We] are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld,’ said Alliance Defense Fund Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell] in a statement. ‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard.’”

NY Daily News: “‘It’s ridiculous to think that the proponents of the ballot initiative would be prevented from continuing to represent the successful result of that initiative all the way,’ [Douglas Napier], the group’s lawyer told the San Francisco Chronicle.”

Gay City News: “The proponents, working with the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay litigation firm, secured the services of Charles Cooper, a leading conservative appellate litigator.”

Cliff Kincaid writing at News With Views: “Senator John Cornyn . . . and Representative Pete Sessions . . . will be participating in a September 22 [event] sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans . . . A Log Cabin spin-off known as GOProud is featuring conservative commentator Ann Coulter at its ‘Homocon’ event a few days later in New York City . . . Meanwhile, with the votes of Republican Senators Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham, and Olympia Snowe, Elena Kagan was confirmed . . . The ‘Republican’ governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a long-time backer of the Log Cabin Republicans, refused to defend the law in court. The legal battle to save traditional marriage has been carried out by the Alliance Defense Fund.”

“A motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court on Friday set a fast schedule for reviewing a plea to put on hold, for several months, a federal judge’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.”

Blog of LegalTimes: “[T]he possibility is real that the case might never make it on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s because the advocates of Prop 8, who are launching the appeal, may not have the necessary ‘standing’ to carry it forward. The case is titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other officials in the position of defending the ballot initiative. But those officials, who are sympathetic toward gay marriage to varying degrees, are not inclined to appeal Walker’s ruling . . . Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf, while sympathizing with Walker’s decision, wrote recently on his blog that a good argument can be made for standing when state officials are reluctant to defend a successful ballot initiative.”

The Raw Story: “‘We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal,’ said [Jim Campbell], an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8 . . . ‘What Judge Walker’s ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court,’ said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. ‘And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, “by the way, you never can defend this.” It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that.’”

Associated Press: “‘We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal,’ said [Jim Campbell], an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8.” | Marriage advocates file Emergency Motion for Stay with the 9th Circuit

The Desert Sun: “David B. Cruz, a constitutional law expert and professor in the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, said the panel would have to consider if those pushing for Proposition 8 to remain in effect have the right to appeal the case in the first place . . . ‘We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal,’ said [Jim Campbell], an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8.”

Stateline.org: “The decision by the elected officials is significant, because they are the two named defendants in the underlying case. That means that if they don’t decide to appeal, there may be nothing that supporters of Proposition 8 can do to stop the weddings from taking place . . . The Sacramento Bee quoted attorney Sara Tappen, of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a supporter of Proposition 8. Tappen told the paper the proposition’s backers should have their appeal heard and ‘have a right to be defended,’ despite state officials who she said ‘refused to defend the laws of the people they represent.’”

OneNewsNow: “Alliance Defense Fund has already launched the process to send the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ADF attorney Sara Tappen tells OneNewsNow that Walker’s ruling is remarkable in light of the magnitude of the issue. ‘It certainly does seem [that way],’ she replies. ‘We had a very strong case for that and we’re confident that at the Ninth Circuit they will be able to review that and see how strong our case for the stay was.’”

Christian Science Monitor: “‘This case has just begun,’ said [Jim Campbell], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund. He said the legal team was ‘confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’ . . . [Walker] went on in his 11-page order to question whether Proposition 8 proponents still have legal standing to pursue the case. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have both announced that they will not seek an appeal in the case. They also declined to seek a stay of Walker’s ruling.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker invalidated Proposition 8 last week, saying the ban was discriminatory and unconstitutional. At the time, he put a temporary stay on his ruling, meaning it could not be enforced . . . [Douglas Napier], an attorney who defended Prop. 8, said . . . he is confident his side will win on appeal. After Walker’s ruling, which was the result of a nonjury trial in January, he called the setback a legal ‘bump in the road.’”

The Christian Post: “The Alliance Defense Fund, which has been defending California’s Prop. 8, announced immediately after Walker’s ruling that it would appeal to the 9th Circuit to stay the trial court’s decision until the case is concluded. ‘This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld,’ remarked ADF Litigation Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell].”

BeliefNet (RNS): “‘This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld,’ said [Jim Campbell], an ADF lawyer.”

Worthy News: “‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ according to a statement released by the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘If the trial’s court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to the stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending.’”

OC Weekly: “Whatever strategy it uses, the opposition is without doubt preparing for war. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is funding and litigating the defense of Prop. 8, is already using the energy of loss to fuel its defense of the proposition. ‘We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision,’ said ADF senior counsel [Brian Raum] in a statement released after the ruling.”

ADF Attorney David Hacker writing at Speak Up Movement / University: “[A] Lopez ruling may give us some insight into the Ninth Circuit’s view of the Prop 8 decision, which has been appealed to that court. After all, the cases bear several similarities . . . In defending the professor’s actions, the College argued that some speech and beliefs do not merit constitutional protection. Similarly, in Perry, the plaintiffs argued that the votes or speech of 7 million Californians should not count because their beliefs are rooted in prejudice . . . Second, in Lopez, the professor silenced the student’s ability to speak. In Perry, the plaintiffs argued and the court ruled that the People of California cannot exercise their rights to speak and vote by supporting a definition of marriage that is millennia old . . . If the Ninth Circuit properly rejects the College’s argument and holds that Lopez has the right to speak freely on campus about his religious beliefs, no matter how much some may disagree with them, then the court might – and should – extend that logic to Perry and hold that citizens of a state have a right to define marriage as they wish, no matter who disagrees with it.”

OneNewsNow: “‘This case has just begun,’ states ADF litigation staff counsel [Jim Campbell], ‘and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.’”

Fresno Bee: “Attorney Sara Tappen, of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a supporter of Proposition 8, said the proposition’s backers are entitled to have their appeal heard. She said California voters ‘have a right to be defended,’ despite state officials who she said ‘refused to defend the laws of the people they represent.’”

Washington Post: ‘I’m happy that the judge issued a temporary stay until next week,’ said [Brian Raum], senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group that participated in the case. ‘That gives us the window we need to seek a more permanent stay as it goes before the 9th Circuit.’”

Recordnet.com: “‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ says a statement from the Alliance Defense Fund.”

WorldNetDaily: “The comments came today from Randy Thomasson of the family-oriented SaveCalifornia.com after Judge Vaughn Walker decided he wanted same-sex marriages to resume in California on Aug. 18 . . . According to Staff Counsel [Jim Campbell] of the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the key organizations arguing on behalf of traditional marriage advocates ProtectMarriage.com, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked immediately for a stay of Walker’s order.”

Mercury News: “San Mateo County officials said they stand ready to issue gay marriage licenses next week if a judge’s ruling Thursday to begin allowing same-sex unions isn’t put on hold again . . . [Jim Campbell], a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the groups defending Proposition 8, said they would ‘appeal immediately’ to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block same-sex marriages from taking place while the appeal is pending. The broader legal challenge is expected to stretch for another year or two and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Seattle Times (SF Chronicle): “The judge added that the state has not defended Proposition 8, leaving that job to private organizations that may not have the standing to appeal. ‘It appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant,’ Walker wrote . . . Attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the organizations defending Proposition 8 in court, said they think they have full standing to carry on their fight.”

New York Times: “‘It makes no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,’ [ADF Attorney Jim Campbell] said in a statement. ‘If the trial court’s decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending.’”

Advocates for Faith & Freedom: “Today, San Francisco Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. In doing so, Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8, which was passed by a majority of California voters in 2008. The trial in this case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, occurred in January, 2010, in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.” | Via Religion Clause

Associated Press: “They said the political makeup of the three-judge panel will make all the difference, playing even a bigger role than Walker’s opinion in shaping the future of gay marriage. Legal experts said the case could easily end with a politically conservative panel of the 9th Circuit reinstating the marriage ban and the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to get involved.”

New York Times: “‘We’re working very closely with the county clerk’s office to make sure that everybody who wants to get married Friday, if the stay is removed, can do so,’ Mr. Ting said Thursday in an interview . . . [Jim Campbell], a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which defended Proposition 8, said that if a stay was not issued, ‘uncertainty’ from any same-sex marriages would be ‘harmful to the public interest’ while the case was under appeal. That could include the administrative burden if government officials had to annul marriages, he said.”

Michael Foust writes at Baptist Press: “What legal arguments will Prop 8 supporters make during their appeal? Attorneys for ProtectMarriage.com and the Alliance Defense Fund argued at the lower court that children need mothers and fathers and the state has an interest in fostering that relationship . . . Opponents of ‘gay marriage’ warn that religious freedom will suffer if the ruling is upheld, impacting everything from what is taught in public schools to how private businesses operate to the tax exempt status of religious organizations and perhaps even churches.”

Fox News: “The 9th Circuit also has direct jurisdiction over nine western states — eight of which have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. If the court upholds Walker’s ruling, all of those bans could instantly be vulnerable to legal challenge, according to [Jordan Lorence], senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. ‘There’s nothing . . . that would limit the reach of this to just California,’ he said.”

Courthouse News Service: “As expected, the Alliance Defense Fund filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit the day after a federal judge invalidated Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.”

Reuters: “Jim Campbell, an attorney with pro-Proposition 8 Alliance Defense Fund, said supporters have not yet decided whether they would agree to a faster schedule, and he estimated that initial legal briefs defending the law could take two to three months to file. Oral arguments might not begin for another year.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “The emotional plea was rejected by [Douglas Napier], an attorney who defended Prop. 8, as a distraction in a case that he said should have been about voters’ rights. He called the ruling, which was the result of a nonjury trial in January, a legal ‘bump in the road.’ ‘Those that want to uphold traditional family values are going to be outraged,’ said Napier, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz. ‘The whole nation is watching, and the whole nation should be quaking to think that a single judge sitting in California can reverse the will of 7 million voters.’”

Arizona Daily Star: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a request by Gov. Jan Brewer for an expedited review of a judge’s decision to enjoin the state from enforcing five sections of the law that were supposed to have taken effect Thursday. The judges gave no reason for their refusal.”