Could the Calif Sup. Court have overturned the state SSM ban in its recent ruling?

Factual Questions
1

A couple days ago there was a ruling from the California Supreme Court that put a stop to the SSMs taking place in San Francisco.

Could they have overturned the state law banning SSM at that time? Or were they only legally able to evaluate whether or not laws were being broken, and unable at that time to change any laws?

Thanks.

2

Interesting question, and worth discussing!

Under the standard of judicial review, courts are required to render judgment in cases brought before them under the law. Notice that the noun is singular – not “laws.” It refers to the abstract concept of the complexus of rules enforceable in court under which our society lurches onward. It includes constitutions, statutes, regulations, executive orders, treaties, decisions of other courts, opinions written by those empowered to analyze the law and present formal opinions thereon (other judges and often state officials and counsel), etc.

The supreme law of the land throughout the U.S. is the U.S. Constitution. No valid law in this country can contravene the provisions of that document. Within each state, and subject to what the U.S. Constitution has to say, the supreme law is the state constitution. No state statute can contravene either constitution.

If in the opinion of the court, either the U.S. Constitution or the California State Constitution’s guarantees can be construed as to make the issuance of marriage licenses to some couples and not to others a violation of their protections, the court would have been quite well empowered to rule that a statute forbidding gay marriages was in violation of one or the other constitution, and therefore unenforceable – “unconstitutional” in everyday language.

Presuming it to be the court of last resort as regards California law, its ruling with reference to California state law would be final, subject to no review except the act of the legislature and citizens to change the constitution or the statutes. If it ruled based on the U.S. constitution, its ruling would be subject to SCOTUS granting certiorari to review its ruling vis-à-vis the U.S. Constitution.

3

While I agree with everything Polycarp stated, I think the OP was a little more basic. If the Supreme Court of California had declared the law unconstitutional in yesterday’s order, it would have been highly irregular within the realm of judicial actions. It is typical that a court first hear arguments (in written and/or oral form) before taking a final action. The order issued by the Supreme Court of California yesterday was not a final ruling, it was merely an injunction so that no more SSMs are performed prior to a final ruling on the constitutionality of the relevant California laws.

Yesterday’s action, BTW, was also not a ruling that anything is happening in violation of any law, it was merely a statement that significant question about legal status of the SSMs exists under California law and, until such time as the question is resolved by the court, no more SSMs shall be performed.

4

Good info, thanks folks.

5

Thanks, DB. I totally missed the idea that the question might be related to how injunctive relief applied, not to the underlying constitutionality question. :o

6

You guys know if it planned or scheduled yet for the Cali. Supreme Court to hear arguments for a final ruling on the SSM marriage laws?

7

Late May or June according to this.

8

Thanks Otto