Fichier de travail (INPUT) : ../DUMP-TEXT/enUS_42-utf8.txt
Encodage utilisé (INPUT) : utf-8
Forme recherchée : [Ss]ame[\s-][Ss]ex [Mm]arriages?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ligne n°14 : ... * [5-5-14_specialfeatures_blue.png]- Ligne n°15 : + Same-sex marriage and the 14th Amendment
Ligne n°16 : + Fair Housing Act ...- Ligne n°48 : Analysis: Paths to same-sex marriage review (UPDATED)
- Ligne n°56 : Depending upon how fast lawyers choose to move, the issue of same-sex marriage could be back before the Supreme Court in a matter of days. So far, only one option has been closed off. The remaining options have some, perhaps considerable, chances of success.
- Ligne n°58 : The decision Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, upholding bans on same-sex marriage in four states, has clearly increased the prospect that the Justices will now take on one or more appeals — perhaps even in time for decision in the current Term. Already, lawyers representing some of the same-sex couples involved have promised a swift appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Ligne n°62 : When the Court on October 6 turned down seven petitions from five states, there was then no split in final decisions among federal courts of appeals in the most recent round of same-sex marriage lawsuits; all had struck down state bans. But the actual date of those denials is now decisive in taking away one option to appeal to the Court.
- Ligne n°66 : Before the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on same-sex marriage, such a rehearing plea probably would have been futile. The option is no longer available: the Court’s Rule 44 says that a petition for rehearing of the denial of a petition must be filed within twenty-five days after the denial order was issued. And the rule specifies that the time “will not be extended.” So, for the seven petitions, that cutoff date has come and gone.
- Ligne n°76 : Option 2: File a petition for review of a ruling by a different federal appeals court that has not yet been appealed to the Supreme Court and for which the ninety-day filing deadline has not yet been reached. There was not much promise of gaining Supreme Court review of such a case when there was no split in the appeals courts; now there is. Cases decided in the Ninth Circuit, for example, would be open to this option, particularly a case from Idaho. That is an option that might well be attracted to officials in a state who want to continue to strongly defend their same-sex marriage bans.
- Ligne n°80 : Among those three options, Option 1 might have the most promise of gaining Supreme Court review because the Sixth Circuit’s decision is the one that broke the pattern, because it involves an array of cases from four states, raising the constitutionality of bans on both new same-sex marriages and the official state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, because it was written by a highly respected court of appeals judge (Jeffrey S. Sutton), because it brought a stirring dissent by another well-regarded jurist (Senior Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey), and because the opinions swept across all of the issues that have been raised in case after case — even the rather obscure question whether a refusal to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to travel, and the emotional question of whether a death certificate for a same-sex spouse who has now died should show that there was a surviving spouse.
- Ligne n°80 : Among those three options, Option 1 might have the most promise of gaining Supreme Court review because the Sixth Circuit’s decision is the one that broke the pattern, because it involves an array of cases from four states, raising the constitutionality of bans on both new same-sex marriages and the official state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, because it was written by a highly respected court of appeals judge (Jeffrey S. Sutton), because it brought a stirring dissent by another well-regarded jurist (Senior Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey), and because the opinions swept across all of the issues that have been raised in case after case — even the rather obscure question whether a refusal to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to travel, and the emotional question of whether a death certificate for a same-sex spouse who has now died should show that there was a surviving spouse.
- Ligne n°80 : Among those three options, Option 1 might have the most promise of gaining Supreme Court review because the Sixth Circuit’s decision is the one that broke the pattern, because it involves an array of cases from four states, raising the constitutionality of bans on both new same-sex marriages and the official state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, because it was written by a highly respected court of appeals judge (Jeffrey S. Sutton), because it brought a stirring dissent by another well-regarded jurist (Senior Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey), and because the opinions swept across all of the issues that have been raised in case after case — even the rather obscure question whether a refusal to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to travel, and the emotional question of whether a death certificate for a same-sex spouse who has now died should show that there was a surviving spouse.
- Ligne n°88 : Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Featured, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage Post-Windsor
- Ligne n°88 : Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Featured, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage Post-Windsor
- Ligne n°90 : Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Analysis: Paths to same-sex marriage review (UPDATED), SCOTUSblog (Nov. 7, 2014, 8:29 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/analysis-paths-to-same-sex-marriage-review/
Ligne n°136 : ... + Bourke v. Beshear- Ligne n°137 : State ban on same-sex marriage
Ligne n°138 : + Obergefell v. Hodges ...
Ligne n°138 : ... + Obergefell v. Hodges- Ligne n°139 : State ban on same-sex marriage
Ligne n°140 : + DeBoer v. Snyder ...
Ligne n°140 : ... + DeBoer v. Snyder- Ligne n°141 : State ban on same-sex marriage
Ligne n°142 : + Tanco v. Haslam ...
Ligne n°142 : ... + Tanco v. Haslam- Ligne n°143 : State ban on same-sex marriage
Ligne n°144 : * Recent Decisions ...