So there are a number of problems with your question. 1) Judge Walker (California) was a federal judge. 2) It’s the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and 3) It would be a fairly typical exercise of appellate review for the Circuit Court to stay the District Court ruling.
I cannot imagine how the 10th Circuit would not stay the ruling (or why Judge Shelby didn’t); the issue is going to have to be further litigated and, assuming the possibility (however remote) that Shelby’s ruling get reversed, you’ll have all these illegally married people running around and no real idea what to do with them.
From a strictly legal perspective, there is no precedent set.
There seems to be some confusion over how the federal court system is organized.
Each state has at least one, and sometimes more than one, federal district court. In Virginia, for example, the state is divided roughly in half by the Eastern District of Virginia and the Western District of Virginia. Utah, despite its geographical size advantage, has only a single district. All told, there are 94 federal districts in the United States.
Trials take place in federal district court, presided over by one judge. Opinions issued by that one judge as a result of that trial are not binding precedent. That is, they certainly bind the parties to the case, but a future judge in that same district could rule differently on the same facts and other parties. Prior decisions are considered persuasive, mind you, because all courts are considered to value the notion of predictable, repeatable outcomes to similar sets of facts, but they are not binding precedent.
An unhappy party has a legal right to appeal the federal district judge’s decision to the federal regional circuit court. There are twelve regional circuit courts, and they must entertain every appeal made – that is, they cannot decline to hear an appeal. My home district, the Eastern District of Virginia, belongs to the Fourth Circuit, as does the Western District of Virginia and the federal district courts in Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Utah, along with the three districts in Oklahoma (Western, Eastern, and Northern), and the districts in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Kansas, all make up the Tenth Circuit Court.
Federal circuit courts consist of a number of judges – usually more than a dozen. When they hear an appeal, typically three of those judges are selected to hear the issues presented on appeal. This is called a “panel,” and their ruling creates binding precedent on the entire circuit. So a panel of Tenth Circuit judges can issue a ruling that defines federal law for Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Kansas – but not the rest of the country. Again, such an opinion would be considered persuasive, but not binding, in any other federal courts.
A party upset with the panel’s opinion may appeal that decision to the full circuit. This is not an appeal of right – it’s a request that is rarely granted. If it is, typically the panel’s decision is vacated – erased, as though it never happened – and the appeal heard again by every single judge on the circuit court. This is referred to as the circuit court sitting en banc. The en banc circuit’s opinion, when issued, is also binding precedent.
The last step is the United States Supreme Court. Here, too, the appeal is not “of right” – meaning you cannot demand that the Supreme Court consider your appeal. You can ask. In fact, technically, it’s not an appeal at all – it’s a petition for a writ of certiorari, a legal mechanism to ask a higher court to correct a lower court’s error. The Supreme Court receives thousands, and chooses which ones to grant.
Decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding federal law for the entire country. In fact, this is one of the most common reasons for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari: to resolve a conflict in circuit law. If a binding precedent from the Tenth Circuit conflicts with a binding precedent from the Fourth Circuit, on a matter of important law, the Supreme Court is expected to resolve the issue.
How likely is it that the 10th Circuit will issue a stay pending the states appeal? After the District Court declined to issue one (if that carries any weight)?
Question: is Shelby one of many judges for the Utah District Court? If so, how was he chosen to hear this case? Is it random like the panel at the Circuit level?
The District of Utah has (according to Wikipedia) 9 judges (including 4 senior judges). Typically, a party files a case and the Clerk randomly assigns the case to a judge (depending on the workload of the senior judges, you’d have up to a 1/9 chance of getting any particular judge). (Curiously, for all the talk of Utah’s “redness,” 6 of the 9 judges were appointed by Democrats, including 3 of the 5 active judges). There are some exceptions to this rule, but they probably don’t apply here.
Robert J. Shelby is one of the most recent judges appointed to serve in the Utah District Court, joining four other active judges. The District of Uath is allotted five total district judges. In addition, they have several judges on “senior status.” After serving at least fifteen years and reaching the age of 65, judges may elect to take senior status – basically they step down from active service, which allows the President to appoint a replacement, but they can continue to hear cases on a part-time basis and they continue to receive their salary and funding for an office and clerks. There are four judges on senior status with the District of Utah, making nine possible choices for a trial judge.
Usually, assignment to a given case is by random draw.
(Technically, any judge on senior status in any district in the Tenth Circuit, and any circuit judge on senior status, could be asked to fill any role in the Tenth Circuit – a senior status district judge could be a member of a circuit court panel; a senior status circuit judge could hear a trial in district court. And even more technically, the Chief Justice of the United States could assign judges of other districts to a particular role, in case of necessity – a judge thus serving would be “by designation.” These kinds of things happen in unusual circumstances only.)
Oops. What with the holiday, I forgot today was Tuesday. It could be as early as today. If the stay is denied, it can be appealed to SCOTUS and will go to Sotomayor to decide or refer to the whole Court.
It makes sense to me. Given the precedent set by the SCOTUS, Shelby believes this challenge will eventually be lost. So why issue a stay for a lost cause? I also recall from another article which I can’t find that Shelby personally used some rather pointed words to the effect of “why would same-sex couples be irreparably harmed more if their marriages are later invalidated if they are actually harmed NOW by denying them a civil right?”
A couple that enters into a marriage later invalidated suffers potentially more harm than one simply denied marriage in the first place. Finances may be comingled; reliance on inheritance and medical next of kin rights may be vitiated. A couple married may, for example, rely on that marriage to supply medical decision-making rights, and then suffer an medical emergency during the time the marriage is overturned.
A couple denied a marriage license, on the other hand, can ensure they are protected by explicit power-of-attorney grants.
And more to the point: even if the judge believes his order will ultimately be upheld, it is customary to grant a stay for the appellate process to work. A single federal district judge should not exercise the power to overturn a state constitutional amendment without further judicial review, no matter how well-intentioned his act is.
Those are good points, but I expect that gay couples entering marriage in Utah right now purposefully take on those risks. Nothing prevents them from waiting until the court case is settled before they marry. Also, though they are married, couples can still keep many such things separate until the case is over. So I find it more convincing that these couples are being much more harmed now by a stay than they would be if the stay is denied. That’s just me though, I don’t think I would have too much emotional investment if the higher court grants a stay. It happened that way in CA and it was annoying, but I’m confident it’ll be settled shortly in a few years.
The 10th Circuit Appeals Court hasn’t responded one way or another yet. From what I can glean, they have a deadline of tomorrow (Christmas Day) around noon, but I don’t know how seriously they take that. Maybe they’ll wait until Thursday given that the court and presumably all Utah county clerks’ offices will be closed tomorrow anyway.
This is a request for an emergency stay which is why they have 48 hours to act. The xmas holiday could give technically give them an extra 24 hours. The anti-SSM people are grasping at straws. There is no rational legal reason to put a stop to the marriages.
Yes. They’re going to fast-track an actual appeal, but did not grant an emergency stay.
This MAY indicate that the chances of the Circuit overturning the District court are less than likely. But I’m no lawyer. And the 10th is NOT the 9th…they tend to be a bit more conservative. We get to find out just how far the Overton Window on marriage equality has shifted since Prop 8.