For Immediate Release
Legal Teams Submit Proposal to U.S. Supreme Court Regarding Oral Argument in Marriage Cases
WASHINGTON - Counsel representing all plaintiffs from the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee marriage lawsuits today submitted a proposal to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that argument time be divided equally among the cases from the four states.
The Court previously allocated 45 minutes each to petitioners and respondents to question 1: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?,” and 30 minutes each to petitioners and respondents to question 2: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”.
The proposal requests that two segments of 15 minutes each be allotted on Question 1 to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Kentucky and Michigan cases (in addition to the 15 minutes that the U.S. Solicitor General has requested on that question) and that two segments of 15 minutes each be allotted on Question 2 to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Ohio and Tennessee cases.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights and private counsel partners representing couples from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee issued the following statement:
“We have an incredible wealth of talent available to argue on behalf of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry and right to have their marriages recognized in all fifty states. Each of the attorneys who argue will stand on the shoulders of thousands in the movement who worked for decades for this day to arrive and will have the best minds helping them prepare. We look forward to this historic opportunity for advocates from each case to present our compelling arguments to the Court and to share this defining moment with our entire community and the nation.”
The petitioner couples' request to the Supreme Court regarding oral arguments is available at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/petitioners_request_regarding_divided_argument_dkt_nos_14-556_14-562_14____1.pdf
More information about Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear, on the ACLU’s case page here: https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/bourke-v-beshear-freedom-marry-kentucky
More information about Deboer v.Snyder on GLAD’s case page here: http://www.glad.org/work/cases/deboer-v.-snyder
More information about Henry v. Hodges on Lambda Legal’s case page here: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes
More information about Obergefell v. Hodges on ACLU’s case page here: https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/obergefell-et-al-v-himes-freedom-marry-ohio
More information about Tanco v. Haslam, on NCLR’s case page here: http://www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/tanco_v_haslam/
Sustain our Journalism
If you believe in Common Dreams, if you believe in people-powered independent journalism, please support our Spring drive now and help progressive media that believes as passionately as you do in defending the common good and building a more just, sustainable, and equitable world.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.