[EL] BREAKING NEWS: DOMA struck down, Prop 8 dismissed on standing

[Fredric Woocher]

With apologies if this is a little late or off-topic, but after having had a chance last night to read the Prop 8 opinions and reflect upon the rather unusual alignment of the Justices, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or had seen any analysis/speculation as to what the alignment of the majority and dissenting Justices might have indicated with respect to the likely outcome of the case on the merits, had the Court reached that issue.

For example, Justice Scalia, who joined in the majority opinion, is not normally one who favors an expansive interpretation of federal standing, so it might not necessarily have been surprising to see him sign onto Roberts' opinion.  But Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer?  They would generally be expected to adopt a more liberal position on access to the federal courts; their votes appear to be more supportive of the outcome that results from denying standard in this case, effectively overturning Prop 8.  Conversely, one would not normally associate Justices Thomas and Alito with an expansive view of standing, and one is left to wonder whether their votes joining Kennedy's dissent were likewise more outcome-oriented, objecting to the fact that the result of the majority's opinion would be to leave the District Court's opinion in place invalidating Prop 8.

And what of Justice Kennedy himself?   I found it interesting, although not really surprising, that after saying that he would have found that Respondents had standing to appeal in order to defend Prop 8, he said nothing about how he would have then ruled on the merits.  Nor did anyone else give any hint as to how they would have ruled on the merits.  Did the other Justices know how Justice Kennedy would have voted on the merits?  Is that why Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer were willing to find no standing and take a "victory" any way they could?  And is that why Justice Scalia was willing to join with Roberts, even though it resulted in upholding Prop 8, because he feared/knew that an even "worse" outcome would have resulted if he had joined with his usual voting colleagues Thomas and Alito instead?

And what did Justice Kennedy say in the first conference vote immediately after oral argument in the case?  Presumably he would not have simply said that he was going to dissent from dismissal on standing grounds, because (a) it's not likely that there would have been five votes voiced by that time in favor of dismissal on standing grounds (since, if I recollect correctly, the Chief states his opinion last) (b) in the absence of such a majority, saying that I would not dismiss is not a complete response to how one would resolve the appeal.  Did Justice Kennedy ever indicate to his colleagues how he would have voted on the merits?

I think it's all fascinating, and I have more questions the more I think about it.  Alas, I suppose we may have to wait until one of the Justices dies and allows their notes to become public - or until a law clerk leaks it - to know what really happened.  But it sure makes for great game theory analysis in the meantime.

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:15 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] BREAKING NEWS: DOMA struck down, Prop 8 dismissed on standing

Under the Prop 8 decision, could the voters (or legislature) of a state give standing to initiative proponents by enacting a law providing that they would represent the state in challenges to initiatives, with state officials also representing the state (if the officials chose to do so)?

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Justin Levitt
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:37 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] BREAKING NEWS: DOMA struck down, Prop 8 dismissed on standing

BREAKING NEWS: DOMA struck down, Prop 8 case dismissed on standing<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52197>
Posted on June 26, 2013 7:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52197> by Justin Levitt<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>

DOMA has been struck down as unconstitutional. Prop 8 case from California dismissed on standing grounds (initiative proponents have no cognizable injury distinct from the general population). I haven't yet read thoroughly, but SCOTUSblog reports that neither finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

DOMA decision is here<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf>; Prop 8 is here<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf>.

Both 5-4, very different majorities. DOMA is Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor; Prop 8 is Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan.
[Image removed by sender. Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52197&title=BREAKING%20NEWS%3A%20DOMA%20struck%20down%2C%20Prop%208%20case%20dismissed%20on%20standing&description=>
Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, voter initiatives<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=61> | Comments Off

--
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at yale.edu>
ssrn.com/author=698321<http://ssrn.com/author=698321>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130627/dc40865e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 365 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130627/dc40865e/attachment.jpg>