9th Circuit ducks same-sex marriage question
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just issued a decision in Smelt v. County of Orange. Smelt and his partner Hammer sued in federal court, claiming that the California marriage laws unconstitutionally denied them the right to marry, and that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
The district court abstained from the marriage question under the Pullman abstention doctrine and dismissed the DOMA claims for lack of standing. The court of appeals affirmed.
The decision is a somewhat technical one, and has nothing to do with the underlying issues of same-sex marriage.
First, the California marriage laws issue. There is a longstanding doctrine, originating in the case Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. (U.S. 1941), that the federal courts should abstain from ruling in a case if there's a state law issue that would remove the need to address a federal constitutional question. The idea is that the federal courts should let the state court interpret its own law first if that might get rid of a federal constitutional issue, which courts hate to deal with. The 9th Circuit held that this was just that kind of case, because the California marriage laws are already being challenged in the California courts under the California constitution. If the Calfornia Supreme Court should decide that same-sex marriage is required by the California constitution, the federal challenge would be moot. Under Pullman abstention, the federal court abstains by holding onto the case but staying the proceedings until the California Supreme Court has ruled. If the California courts refuse to recognize same-sex marriage as a right, the case could be reinstated in the federal court.
The other issue is even more technical. DOMA does two main things: 1) it says that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and 2) it defines "marriage" and "spouse" to refer to heterosexual couples throughout all of federal law. The net effect of the definition part of DOMA is to deny any federal benefits that are given to married people to same-sex couples. The court dismissed Smelt and Hammer's claims for lack of standing.
In order to get into court, a party must have standing to bring a claim. The standing requirement comes from Article III of the Constitution, which gives federal courts jurisdiction only over cases and controversies. The basic idea is that courts don't issue advisory opinions. The first requirement of standing is that there be an injury. Here, the court found that there was no injury.
Smelt and Hammer haven't been injured by the first part of DOMA because they haven't been married and tried to get that marriage recognized in another state. They haven't been injured by the second part because they haven't requested and been denied any federal benefits. Thus, no standing.
This may seem like a harsh rule, but it's the way standing law is right now. The only people who might have standing are same-sex couples who've been married in Massachusetts.
The district court abstained from the marriage question under the Pullman abstention doctrine and dismissed the DOMA claims for lack of standing. The court of appeals affirmed.
The decision is a somewhat technical one, and has nothing to do with the underlying issues of same-sex marriage.
First, the California marriage laws issue. There is a longstanding doctrine, originating in the case Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. (U.S. 1941), that the federal courts should abstain from ruling in a case if there's a state law issue that would remove the need to address a federal constitutional question. The idea is that the federal courts should let the state court interpret its own law first if that might get rid of a federal constitutional issue, which courts hate to deal with. The 9th Circuit held that this was just that kind of case, because the California marriage laws are already being challenged in the California courts under the California constitution. If the Calfornia Supreme Court should decide that same-sex marriage is required by the California constitution, the federal challenge would be moot. Under Pullman abstention, the federal court abstains by holding onto the case but staying the proceedings until the California Supreme Court has ruled. If the California courts refuse to recognize same-sex marriage as a right, the case could be reinstated in the federal court.
The other issue is even more technical. DOMA does two main things: 1) it says that states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and 2) it defines "marriage" and "spouse" to refer to heterosexual couples throughout all of federal law. The net effect of the definition part of DOMA is to deny any federal benefits that are given to married people to same-sex couples. The court dismissed Smelt and Hammer's claims for lack of standing.
In order to get into court, a party must have standing to bring a claim. The standing requirement comes from Article III of the Constitution, which gives federal courts jurisdiction only over cases and controversies. The basic idea is that courts don't issue advisory opinions. The first requirement of standing is that there be an injury. Here, the court found that there was no injury.
Smelt and Hammer haven't been injured by the first part of DOMA because they haven't been married and tried to get that marriage recognized in another state. They haven't been injured by the second part because they haven't requested and been denied any federal benefits. Thus, no standing.
This may seem like a harsh rule, but it's the way standing law is right now. The only people who might have standing are same-sex couples who've been married in Massachusetts.