Three months ago today, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for SSM cases from Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Unless, I’ve missed it, they have yet to issue a ruling. After today, they will break the 6th Circuit’s record for time between hearing and ruling on SSM cases. (*)
Will they make a ruling at all? Maybe they’re waiting to see what SCOTUS will say. That probably won’t be until June though, and the 5th Circuit judges haven’t actually said that’s what they’re doing. Dammit, I want to see some gay cowboy weddings!
(*) Counting by months that is. Counting by days, they will break the record on … Sunday I think.
Bump. The SCOTUS heard cases today that will probably moot whatever decision the 5th Circuit CoA makes, so I’m guessing the 5th will continue to sit it out. Still, they heard oral arguments almost four months ago now. I doubt they’re still actively deliberating. Even just as a taxpayer, I’d like to see them make their decision and move on to other work.
Well, it’s not like they’re just sitting around, drinking coffee and waiting on the Supremes. If I’m reading the docket correctly, there have been over 2000 cases filed with the 5th Circuit CoA so far this year, so they have plenty to keep them busy. Judge Higginbotham (the presumed swing vote on the panel in this case) teaches in addition to taking a full case load, despite being a senior judge (which is a sort of semi-retirement in which judges can take a reduced load).
I would guess that once they learned the Supreme Court had granted cert, they put the case on hold and got on with other business. Even if they’d issued a ruling (either way), there would almost certainly have been an immediate petition for a stay until the Supreme Court made a decision, and it probably would have been granted.
Yes, it’s very possible that I just don’t understand how circuit judges operate. They actually hear new cases while they’re deliberating on previous ones? Do they actively deliberate n hours a day on a given case, or do they just need calendar time to let things sort of sink in?
You’re probably right that they’ve put this on the back burner because it’s easier to wait for SCOTUS. They haven’t actually said that’s what they’re doing though, and they’ve know about the SCOTUS hearing since January 16. It seems to me they once intended to make a ruling, but now are just letting it skate. Too bad, because they delayed even hearing the biggest case, DeLeon v. Perry, for almost a year, so that decision is now in its 15th month of stay.
I’m not directly familiar with the operation of the court, so this is from reading up on it a bit:
There are 17 judges, and they often work in panels of 3. A panel may hear as many as 5 cases in a day when the court is in session. Most cases get at most an hour or two of oral argument; for other information, the judges rely on the filings. A Court of Appeals is not trier of fact; their purpose is to address points of law and procedure. For cases that involve complex or delicate questions of law, they spend time examining possible precedents, the text of relevant laws, and various legal theories (and, I’m sure, many other things). And yes, they do that for multiple cases all the time. I think it’s pretty rare for a judge–appeal or trial court–to spend all their time on one case.
They need time to write opinions (well, to have their staff attorneys write them) and to review the dozens of amici briefs that have doubtless been filed, and so on. But yes, appellate judges deliberate on multiple cases at the same time.