Wednesday, April 22, 2015

What's at Stake in Next Week's SSM Oral Argument?

by Michael Dorf

In my latest Verdict column, I take the occasion of next week's oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases to reflect on some broader questions about the relation between social change and judicial rulings. I make a number of points, including these: (1) Progress on LGBT rights has been very rapid in recent years but partly that's a tipping-point effect that disguises the long steady progress; (2) in general, majoritarian politics lends itself to tipping points, because just below 50% support for some legal change means that the status quo likely remains, whereas just above 50% means that it can change rapidly; (3) the courts play an important role in this dynamic, although hardly the primary one; (4) because legal change follows rather than leads social change, the worst abuses of minorities and others will typically occur before they have legal protection; but (5) it does not follow that progress in the social and political realm should prevent rights claimants from having their claims recognized. Too cryptic? Read the column.

I presented a version of the foregoing, along with other thoughts on the SSM cases, to a constitutional law workshop at UC-Berkeley Law School on Monday. A lively discussion ensued. Here I'd like to focus on one aspect of that discussion: What, if anything, is at stake in the case?

The "if anything" may sound jarring, but I ask because I continue to think that there is virtually no chance that the SCOTUS will rule against the plaintiffs/petitioners. As I have noted on numerous occasions (e.g., here), if the Court were to unexpectedly hold that there is no right to SSM, then the only people who got married in reliance on lower federal court rulings that there is a right to SSM who would certainly be entitled to remain married for state purposes would be those who were actual parties to the litigation. The thousands of others who were married over the objections of state officials could find themselves retroactively de-married, a fate as cruel as it would be confusing. The Justices must have been aware of these realities when they permitted the interim marriages to go forward, and so, either the matter is a foregone conclusion or the Justices have lost their minds.

I shall proceed on the assumption that the Justices have not lost their minds. What, then, is at stake? At least the following:

(1) Anti-LGBT discrimination in other contexts

Even if the Court finds a right to SSM, it might be possible for states and their sub-divisions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as to employment, benefits, etc. Much depends on how the Court reaches the result. The best approach, in my view, would be to find that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation triggers heightened scrutiny. That would still leave private anti-LGBT discrimination unregulated, of course, but the suspect and semi-suspect classifications for constitutional purposes often serve as a model for local, state, and federal statutory protection. A clear ruling by the SCOTUS on this point would carry considerable persuasive weight with legislators. To be sure, as David Schraub noted in the Q&A, there is a risk that heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation could end up doing more harm than good for LGBT Americans because the Court's "symmetry" principle means that then laws advantaging them would also be subject to heightened scrutiny. That's a real risk, but a small one, I think: There is very little need for affirmative action or the like for LGBT Americans, so more to gain than to lose from suspectness or quasi-suspectness.

(2) Doctrinal Order

Each of the leading gay rights cases in the SCOTUS to this point has been authored by Justice Kennedy, and each has been doctrinally unorthodox. In Romer v. Evans, the Court invalidated Colorado's Amendment 2 because it "defie[d]" conventional scrutiny, applying neither rational basis scrutiny nor heightened scrutiny, nor even exactly something in between. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court used the structure but not the language of fundamental rights, but lower courts have sometimes construed it as merely applying rational basis scrutiny. And United States v. Windsor blended equality, dignity, and federalism concerns in a way that gave people of various commitments the chance to claim victory. These departures from the conventional doctrine have been a great source of fun for academics and while I think that there is much to be said for Justice Kennedy's unorthodox approach (as I noted here), the doctrine in this area has often felt like it was not done evolving. The SSM cases provide the Court the opportunity to say whether the cases to this point have been a kind of way station en route to treating sexual orientation as a suspect or quasi-suspect classification or whether they herald something new: either a sui generis approach to sexual orientation (but why?) or, more intriguingly, the end of the old structure of tiers of scrutiny as a general matter.

(3) The Legacy of the Other Conservative Justices

Another question posed during the Q&A, this one by Jesse Choper, was whether CJ Roberts might join the liberals and assign the opinion to himself in order to keep it fairly narrow. My answer--which was pretty rank speculation--was that even if the Chief Justice joins the liberals plus Justice Kennedy for a 6-3 ruling, he would likely assign the opinion to Justice Kennedy if Justice wants to write it, as he probably would.

More important than who ends up writing is how the Chief Justice votes. His Windsor dissent could be said to box him in as opposed to a constitutional right to SSM, but Justices routinely vote against a decision and then accept it as precedent. And so, if CJ Roberts reads the writing on the wall and wants to end up on the right side of history, there is wiggle room for him to join the liberals. A 6-3 decision would also make the Court look less political. This too is speculation but my gut instinct tells me that at some level, the Chief Justice wants to vote in favor of the plaintiffs but that he may not be able to bring himself to do so.

Meanwhile, I have very little doubt that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will vote for the state respondents. The highest stakes here may be for Justice Scalia. His dissents in Romer (decrying gay political power) and Lawrence ("Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home") contain culture war language that was inappropriate then but is downright embarrassing now. Justice Scalia's Windsor dissent was much more measured.

I cannot imagine Justice Scalia joining the Court in finding a right to SSM, but for his sake, he ought to write a dissent that is, in tone, more like Judge Sutton's Sixth Circuit ruling--more in sorrow than in anger, and focused on what he regards as the appropriate roles of legislators as opposed to judges. If he really wants to protect or enhance his legacy he would follow the course laid out by Justice Thomas in his Lawrence dissent (which Justice Scalia did not join, even though Justice Thomas joined Justice Scalia's Lawrence dissent). There, Justice Thomas stated that he would vote to repeal a same-sex sodomy ban were he a legislator but that he didn't think he had the authority to invalidate the ban as a Justice. It was a cost-free gesture that showed a certain magnanimity.

Even so, I doubt Justice Scalia will follow suit now, mostly because I don't imagine that he would vote to repeal a SSM ban if he were a legislator. But at the very least, for the long-term good of his own reputation, he should keep his rhetoric in check.


Joe said...

"more in sorrow than in anger"

Good luck with the gentler Scalia. If anything, he is more cranky these days on cultural issues.

As to Thomas, I sorta find his Lawrence opinion hypocritical given he joined Scalia's dissent. If Thomas wanted to take the dissent view in Griswold that the law was stupid but constitutional, he would have simply dissented separately. Scalia's opinion suggests the law was actually important as a means for the public to voice their moral beliefs. "Stupid but constitutional" is not how I read his opinion.

I also would have respected Thomas more if he joined the federalist arguments against DOMA. As to Roberts, it would be interesting if he finds some way to split the baby.

Anyway, the 8th Cir. is going to have an oral argument next month on SSM. That's a big "what's the point?" The 1st Cir. after all decided to wait and see in respect to Puerto Rico.

Shag from Brookline said...

As to Mike's closing:

"Even so, I doubt Justice Scalia will follow suit now, mostly because I don't imagine that he would vote to repeal a SSM ban if he were a legislator. But at the very least, for the long-term good of his own reputation, he should keep his rhetoric in check."

at oral arguments will we witness the actual Justice Scalia or the fictional "The Originalist"?

Eric Segall said...

One of my predictions (will have a piece up soon) is Roberts will vote to overturn the bans on gender discrimination grounds.

egarber said...

I'm curious about how much marriage as a fundamental right might play into the ruling. Is it possible the Court might side step classes altogether -- and make it about lack of compelling interest for same-sex marriage bans?

The corollary would be figuring out what constitutes compelling need (limiting factors). Do polygamy bans pass that test in some way?

Or is there anything like semi-fundamental rights that call for something less than strict scrutiny?

Joe said...

I like the gender discrimination argument (Andrew Koppleman again promotes it at Balkinization & via an amicus brief) but it seems a bit out there for Roberts to latch on to. He doesn't seem to be keen on novel arguments and as a matter of doctrine, that is fairly novel.

Shag from Brookline said...

Might LA-la Gov. Bobby Jindal's Op-Ed in today's NYTimes provide cover (courage?) in oral argument for the actual "legendary" Justice Scalia over the fictional "The Originalist"?

Jindal has yet to declare his candidacy and is relying upon the theme of his Op-Ed in anticipation of declaring. Assuming the Court rules in favor of petitioners, the fight against SSM will continue at the state level just as did Jim Crow but with a religious motif.

David Madsen said...

Immutability may be a factor in deteminiing heightened scrutiny. There is no scientific fact that homosexuality is determined by biology (e.g. Genetics). Therefore it cannot be said that it occurs as an accident of birth. The American Psycological Association has stated that the cause of homosexuality has not been determined. This makes the case for heightened scrutiny much more difficult than race or sex.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

"no scientific fact that homosexuality is determined by biology"

My understanding of the evidence is that biology is likely a factor in sexual attraction. There isn't any one factor, but studies have shown biology is an important one.

This brief, which Prof. Dorf has signed, covers the heightened scrutiny point including the four usual criteria:

Note the prong in question has repeatedly be expressed broadly: "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group"

The "much more difficult" argument is dubious.

Shijun Lin said...

shijun 5.20
celine outlet online
hollister clothing store
christian louboutin shoes
ray ban outlet
red bottom shoes
oakley sunglasses
coach outlet
timberland uk
ray ban outlet
coach outlet online
burberry handbags
michael kors
louis vuitton purses
hollister clothing store
ralph lauren home
cheap oakleys
abercrombie kids
burberry sale
oakley outlet
cheap oakleys
true religion outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton handbags
cheap nfl jerseys
oakley sunglasses discount
juicy couture handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
celine bags
coach outlet
jordan 13s
louis vuitton outlet
air jordan 13
official kate spade outlet online
coco chanel
ralph lauren uk
coach outlet online
coach factorty outlet

chenlina said...

louis vuitton online shop
tory burch outlet
coach factory outlet
chanel handbags
prada handbags
coach factory outlet
burberry sale
air jordan retro
red timberland boots
louis vuitton outlet
toms shoes
hollister clothing store
christian louboutin sale
louis vuitton outlet
toms wedges
abercrombie kids
lebron 11
oakley sunglasses
jordan 6
ray ban sungalsses
cheap jordans
true religion
ghd flat iron
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
ray ban wayfarer
cheap jordans
cheap nfl jerseys
louis vuitton handbags
marc jacobs outlet
timberland boots
louis vuitton uk
hollister kids
christian louboutin shoes
burberry outlet
timberland pro
pandora jewelry
ray ban glasses
michael kors outlet online sale
hollister kids

Guo Guo said...

mcm bags
new york jets jerseys
tory burch outlet online
timberland shoes
roshe run men
lacoste shirts
oakley sunglasses
boston celtics jersey
chanel handbags
swarovski crystal
hermes birkin
iphone 6 plus cases
louis vuitton outlet
prada outlet
michael kors handbags
burberry outlet online
abercrombie and fitch
tods shoes
converse all star
lacoste outlet
denver broncos jerseys
air jordan shoes
adidas outlet
adidas shoes
nike running shoes
marc jacobs outlet
seattle seahawks jerseys
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
kate spade handbags
ray ban sunglasses
hermes belt
converse shoes
mcm handbags
lebron james shoes
gucci outlet
calvin klein underwear
louis vuitton outlet