This is an update on the Emergency Motion to Stay that the Prop 8 supporters filed with the Ninth Circuit last night.
The Ninth Circuit just issued an Order stating that the Plaintiffs' response to the Motion to Stay is due by 11:00 p.m. tonight. The Prop 8 supporters' reply, not to exceed 15 pages, is due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 16, 2010. This suggests that the Ninth Circuit is preparing to rule on the Motion to Stay before Judge Walker's temporary stay expires on August 18th at 5:00 p.m.
It's surprising that the Court only gave the Plaintiffs about 9 hours to file their brief, and gave the Appellants until Monday to Reply. But I wouldn't read too much into this. They know that everyone anticipated the Motion and that everyone's briefs are essentially written already.
UPDATE: Imperial County filed a joinder in the Prop 8 supporter's Emergency Motion to Stay.
This is probably not an answerable question until Wednesday, but does this fantastically accelerated briefing schedule imply that the 9th Cir. is going to stay pending appeal, and is concerned about what would happen if it doesn’t (basically, more marriages)? Or does not lend insight into the potential decision, and instead just show that the 9th Cir. is trying to dot its i’s and cross its t’s in order to give the Supreme Court a case without a messy procedural posture?
…read too much into it, either. It’s just because it’s a weekend – the response is due first thing on Monday.
Plaintiffs came in with just a few minutes to spare. Bit earlier, Attorney General Brown also filed in opposition to the request for a stay…
It appears that the Ninth Circuit is going to an annual conference.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake….
Before the Ninth Circuit they are called Respondents, not plaintiffs.
I have been following the case as closely as a layperson can, reading the decisions and transcripts, etc., but I still don’t feel like I fully understand the Imperial County drama, since it has been mentioned only in passing in the articles I’ve read (on prop8trialtracker.com, here, firedoglake, lgbtpov, poliglot/law dork, dailykos, towleroad.com, pamshouseblend.com, etc.).
Is this correct:
They were denied the right to intervene since you can’t have a zillion different state entities all speaking for the state; that’s the AG’s role.
Unlike Imperial County, City & County of SF was allowed to join the plaintiffs because SF is suffering a particular harm from having to enforce discriminatory marriage laws.
Then the cuckoo Imperial county legislators voted to appeal but still don’t have any more chance at Article III standing than they did at becoming a defendant/intervenor in district court.
???