October 7, 2014 at 6:54 am EDT | by Chris Johnson
Why did Supreme Court refuse to hear marriage?
Supreme Court of the United States, John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, gay news, Washington Blade

From left, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (Photos public domain)

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari on five marriage cases surprised many legal observers amid expectations that the justices would want to weigh in on the hot button national issue.

But maybe it shouldn’t have. In recent public comments, justices have dropped hints that a decision was made and they weren’t eager to take up the issue at this time because of unanimity thus far in favor of marriage equality at the circuit level.

Just last week, U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia made headlines after a speech at the University of Colorado, teasing the crowd when asked when we’ll find out if the high court will take up marriage by saying, “I know when, but I’m not going to tell you. Soon! Soon!”

How could he declare with such certainty that he knew the answer for the timing? Because he knew at the Sept. 29 conference that a vote to grant certiorari had failed in each of the five marriage cases and orders announcing the petitions were denied were forthcoming from the court.

It takes an affirmative vote of four justices to grant certiorari (or decide to take up a case), but a petition is denied if that four-vote threshold isn’t met. The results of those votes aren’t public, nor was any explanation given, but that hasn’t stopped speculation about what motivated justices to turn down an opportunity to decide what many consider to be the case of the century.

A commonly cited reason for the Supreme Court’s decision to refrain from taking up the marriage issue is the unanimity of decisions striking down bans on same-sex marriage from the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth circuit courts of appeals.

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, during a conference call with reporters, pointed to wide consensus among the courts that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

“It’s total speculation, but my speculation would be they decided that there was unanimity among the federal courts of appeal, and virtual unanimity among all the federal courts and almost all the state courts,” Davidson said. “Since the Windsor decision, it is clear that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. There was therefore no need for them to step in at the moment.”

That would be consistent with well-publicized remarks that U.S. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made weeks ago at a Minnesota Law School in which she reportedly said there’s “no need for us to rush” to take up marriage unless the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a decision upholding bans on same-sex marriage, which would cause a split among the circuit courts.

Many presumed she meant the petitions would be on hold before the Supreme Court as more courts ruled on marriage, but as it turns out the court was about to determine same-sex couples would soon be able to wed in each of the states where federal appeals courts struck down marriage bans: Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, predicted that denial of certiorari from the Supreme Court would continue as long as circuit courts keep striking down bans on same-sex marriage.

“The court can allow this to keep moving forward without its intervention,” NeJaime said. “So long as decisions are going in the same direction, the court can wait to intervene until more states are in the marriage equality column.”

In the event that a future circuit court upholds bans on same-sex marriage — say the Sixth Circuit, or the more conservative U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — it would be incumbent on the more liberal justices to find four votes to grant certiorari to reverse the decision, which should be easier than the other way around.

An additional factor explaining the denial of certiorari is the judicial philosophy of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a perceived reluctance to engage in controversial issues. It’s widely assumed the court decided to hear the case challenging California’s Proposition 8 because the four most conservative justices — U.S. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Roberts and Scalia — decided to grant certiorari in the case.

Roberts wrote the majority opinion on Prop 8, which ducks the merits of the case and instead ruled defendants didn’t have standing in the lawsuit. If he only took up the case for that reason and otherwise believes the Supreme Court should stay out of lower court decisions against same-sex marriage, it could have broke up the necessary four votes needed to take up a marriage case in the first place.

A variation on this explanation is the four conservative justices on the court didn’t think they had the five votes to overturn a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage if the court considered a case. The swing vote on the court — U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the decision against the Defense of Marriage Act — was presumably seen as a sure bet in favor of marriage equality.

Lambda’s Davidson elaborated on this possibility in the conference call with reporters.

“The four more conservative justices couldn’t count to five,” Davidson said. “They were not assured of a fifth vote, and so they didn’t want to grant review yet because that might allow there to be a decision that marriage equality is required across the country as soon as that case is decided.”

But one question that remains is why the Supreme Court decided to issue stays on same-sex marriages earlier in the year in Utah and more recently in Virginia if justices were going to refuse to hear the cases anyway. The presence of those stays was the biggest reason that legal experts assumed the Supreme Court intended to hear a marriage case.

Theodore Olson, co-counsel of the case that sought marriage in Virginia, was reluctant to speculate on why justices declined to hear the litigation, but told reporters the stays may have been enacted so the court could have more leeway to make a decision at a later time.

“I suspect that the Supreme Court granted a stay in the case, in all these cases initially so that it could consider whether or not it was going to hear the case and avoid the situation where if it had taken the case, it wanted to have the freedom to decide this one way or the other without the problem of people getting married, and then being exposed to the possibility that those marriages would somehow be upset by an adverse decision,” Olson said.

There are mixed views on what would happen to the states that now have marriage equality as a result of the denial certiorari in the event the court takes up a marriage case at later time, but determines bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

Some say same-sex marriages in those states would be allowed to continue; others say defendants in the case would have the option to move to halt the weddings, although couples that already wed would be allowed to stay married. Whatever the case, it’s hard to see how such a ruling would come down unless the makeup of the court changes in the immediate future.

Regardless of the explanation for why the Supreme Court denied certiorari, it made Oct. 6, 2014 a milestone moment in gay rights history and expanded marriage equality to five more states. The tally now stands at 24, and one can now drive from Richmond to Bangor without entering a state that bans gay marriage.

The decision also makes it likely that bans in other states in the Fourth and Tenth circuits — North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming — will soon fall. Once they go down, it would bring the number to 30.

Adam Romero, federal legal director for the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, said justices knew the impact of what they doing when they denied certiorari whatever their reason for doing so.

“While the court did not provide its reasoning for denying review in these cases, I have no doubt that the justices were acutely aware of the effect — that denying review would clear the way for same-sex marriage to come to a number of states where it had been prohibited,” Romero said. “Perhaps also notable is that no justice issued a written dissent from the denial of cert or the lifting of the stays.”

And the number of same-sex marriage states will likely increase more now that courts are under additional guidance on handling the marriage issue. Additional circuit court decisions are expected soon from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on bans in Idaho and Nevada and from the Sixth Circuit on bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Meanwhile, LGBT advocates continue to urge the Supreme Court to find an appropriate vehicle to deliver a nationwide ruling in favor of marriage rights.

James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT Project, told reporters the denial of certiorari is a “watershed moment” and it’s on par now with a ruling from the Supreme Court at a nationwide level in many respects.

“It means that we get equality on the ground for same-sex couples more quickly in a whole bunch of places and also sends a signal to all the other judges in all the other states that are out there of where the Supreme Court may well be on this issue,” Esseks said. “And I think that’s going to get us to marriage in all 50 states very quickly.”

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

  • The Supreme Court did not "pass" on marriage.

    The Supreme Court declined the appeals, which means they feel that the circuit courts' decisions so obviously proceed from the law and the facts that judicial review isn't necessary.

    The Supreme Court did not take an appeal and put it through a formal process of judicial review. If they had, their decision would be effective nationwide. However, they are probably circumspect of the blood lust among the busybodies who think that other people's marriages are their business.

    The Supreme Court had two ways to take action; they took the way that causes the least social disruption. If the Supreme Court had wanted to take a pass, they would have thrown the appeals into a stack for future action.


  • “While the court did not provide its reasoning for denying review in these cases, I have no doubt that the justices were acutely aware of the effect — that denying review would clear the way for same-sex marriage to come to a number of states where it had been prohibited,” Romero said. “Perhaps also notable is that no justice issued a written dissent from the denial of cert or the lifting of the stays.”

    The Catholics appear to be following the teachings of the church and the Liberals took what they could.

    • If the Catholic Church controls judges in the Supreme Court, it is the most egregious possible violation of our constitution and our sovereignty—especially since the Vatican is a foreign country according to the State Department and Catholic Churches fly the Vatican flag. The Catholic Church has no fewer and no more rights than the Unitarian Church, and neither the Vatican nor Venezuela nor any other foreign entity has the right to influence American government under the table.

  • They are not letting states make decisions for themselves, they are letting the process go through the circuit courts for now. They have also put the circuit courts on notice that they do not believe the anti-marriage arguments are even worthy of court time.

    Declining an appeal takes effect immediately, gives plaintiffs immediate relief, and saves everyone the cost of going to court. Note that they took ALL of the appeals and declined ALL of them. The court is not going to disagree with itself, so the ultimate outcome is certain.

    If they took up the case, it would delay relief for the plaintiffs, and if they decide for the whole country too early, it will result in an explosion from marriage opponents and perhaps even assaults on gay married couples. However, in states where gay marriage is legalized, support or indifference grows and opposition ebbs. By doing it this way, the issue defuses itself and marriage opponents lose their supporters. In a few months, when the court makes its final decision, or declines so many appeals that the opponents of marriage give up, things will be calmer.

    Of course, an activists does not and should not settle for anything less than total victory; however, while we don't get instant gratification, we get the most benefit from this approach.

    • Thanks. That’s helpful, Ken. And if you’re entertaining questions — understanding that it’s all purely speculative, of course…
      (1) Which, if any, of the remaining ‘DOMA states’ are likely to be flipped via State Supreme Court ruling? When (roughly) might that happen?
      (2) We hear decisions by the 6th and 9th Circuits can come any day now. But what do the likely schedules of the remaining Circuits (5th, 8th, 11th) look like for M.E.?
      Which potential denial of SS plaintiff cases by a Circuit(s) are likely to trigger review by SCOTUS soon (i.e., before Jan ’15?– last time SCOTUS can grant review this term?).
      (3) Given SCOTUS’ Monday refusal to hear *ALL* the cases, are any of the Circuit Court decisions which strike down remaining state DOMAs (as is predicted for the 9th, e.g.) likely to result in NOMINAL (days) or NO stays of such decisions? In other words, are SS marriages likely to be permissible if a Circuit Court rules to strikes down state DOMAs going forward?
      Thanks again.

  • There's another way to look at the decision not to accept the 5 cases. Justice Roberts is well aware of the public's growing distrust of the court and the very bad PR the court has. So why would he want to act on something that could bring even more damage to the court's reputation? He does have the institution of the court to be concerned about after all. Would Justice Scalia, who has a healthy ego, want to have his own words in the Windsor case thrown back in his face during a hearing on the 5 cases? Not likely. And we all know/think Justice Thomas does what Scalia tells him to do and besides his wife works for an anti-gay group that could be awkward for him. Finally there's Justice Alito. He would just be outvoted so why press the issue? So on personal grounds, it's easy to count 8 or even 9 votes against hearing the cases. As Justice Ginsburg said, there's no rush for SCOTUS to act.

  • Actually, this announcement is great news for queer people like me who support only man-woman marriage. http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/07/actually-the-court-just-undercut-gay-marriages-inevitability/

  • David….if you exist…gay and self-loathing. Even Log Cabin GOP and GOProud fight for marriage equality. Quisling queers exist, just as some Jews supported the National Socialists in the 1932 elections. Voting against your own self interest is nothing new. Inasmuch as I know that some like you exist, I simply harbor the belief that you’re a troll looking for a reaction.

  • If the court reverses the right to marriage equality, “Some say same-sex marriages in those states would be allowed to continue; others say defendants in the case would have the option to move to halt the weddings, although couples that already wed would be allowed to stay married. Whatever the case, it’s hard to see how such a ruling would come down unless the makeup of the court changes in the immediate future.”
    I can’t see how courts could justify allowing some gay people to remain legally married while denying others that right in saying there is no constitutional right to marry. Looking at just the case of Romer V. Evans where the court struck down a Colorado law that targeted gay people, the ruling stated that laws cannot be applied to people differently or single out a group based on hatred of that group.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2021. All rights reserved.