Civil and Human Rights

Justices Take Up Marriage Challenges

Bans on same-sex unions set for arguments in April.

 

By Marcia Coyle

 

The U.S. Supreme Court stepped into a historic legal, political and social debate on Jan. 16 when it agreed to decide whether states can prohibit same-sex marriages without violating the federal Constitution.

 

The addition of the same-sex marriage issue to a docket that already includes a high-stakes challenge to the federal health care reform law almost guarantees another potentially landmark term for the Roberts Court.

 

The justices granted review in four pending cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld bans on marriage and the recognition of out-of-state marriages in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The justices directed briefing on both the marriage and recognition issues.

 

Arguments before the high court will be in April with a decision by the end of June….

 

Reaction to the high court’s grant of review was swift. Judith Schaeffer, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, called the justices’ announcement “a key milestone” in the gay and lesbian movement for full equality. “The nation will soon see if Chief Justice Roberts is on the right side of the Constitution, not to mention the right side of history, when the court hands down its decision,” she said….

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 26, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.