Clooney Lends Star Power to Prop 8 Play

Comments Off

The West Coast premiere of "8", the stage play written by Academy Award-winner Dustin Lance Black ("Milk"), will star George Clooney. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which is funding the legal team fighting Prop. 8, announced that Clooney will perform at a March 3 stage reading scheduled at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles.

The play is based on the 2010 trial that ended with Prop. 8 being struck down (it's still the law of the land of course). The dialogue is based on the trial transcripts and interviews with the plaintiffs and their families.

AFER didn't say specifically who Clooney would play, only that he and other actors to be named later will portray members of the legal team, plaintiffs and witnesses from both sides.

A similar performance at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre in New York City in September featured a smorgasbord of A-Listers, including Morgan Freeman, who played attorney David Boies and John Lithgow as Ted Olson. AFER says that performance raised $1 million for the fight against Prop. 8.

George Clooney is having one helluva year. His performance as a distant father suddenly presiding over a family crisis in "The Descendants" has generated plenty of Oscar buzz. And "The Ides of March"  which he directed and plays liberal Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris who's running for president.

If Clooney picks up another statue at the Feb. 26 Oscars, his appearance in "8" six days later should make for a very fun after party!


Ethics of Prop. 8 Judge Weighed in Federal Appeals Court

Comments (1)

Judge Vaughn Walker

Judicial ethics and rules of disclosure require judges to reveal whether they have a personal interest in the outcome of a case before them. Supporters of Prop. 8 argue for that reason Judge Vaughn Walker should have disclosed he was in a long term relationship with another man -- and whether he ever intended to marry him.

That issue is now in the hands of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Continue reading »


Prop. 8's Long and Winding Road Continues

Comments Off

It's been exactly a year since a panel of 9th Circuit Court judges heard oral arguments on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down Prop. 8 for violating the U.S. Constitution. No decision has been rendered on that appeal, and none is likely soon.

But Thursday that same panel will hear two somewhat ancillary issues:

1. An appeal of a District court order to release the Prop. 8 trial tapes. Plaintiff's attorney Theodore Olson will argue the case for releasing the digital videos. Attorney Charles Cooper will speak on behalf of overturning the lower court's decision and keeping the tapes sealed.

2. An appeal of a decision rejecting efforts to have Judge Walker's decision vacated because he had a conflict of interest as a gay man in a long term relationship. Mr. Cooper will argue for Prop. 8 proponents, while David Boies will present the oral arguments on behalf of the lower court decision striking down the motion to vacate.

Both decisions were made in the past year by federal Judge James Ware, Chief Judge of the Northern District of California. Regarding the tapes, Judge Ware wrote that unsealing and releasing them to the public was in the public interest and necessary to maintain transparency in a case of such fundamental importance. His decision is supported by a coalition of media organizations, that includes Fox News, the NY Times and KQED among others. An attorney representing that coalition will participate in Thursday's oral arguments.

In strongly rejecting the motion to vacate, Judge Ware said that were Judge Walker required to recuse himself under federal statutes, all minority judges would have to recuse themselves from any case involving civil rights, something he said Congress could not have intended in writing the recusal statute.

Neither of these issues go to the cental legal merits of the constitutionality of Prop. 8. That is especially true in the video tapes question.

However, the oral arguments regarding Judge Walker's obligation to recuse himself because of his status as a gay man in a same sex relationship may reveal more about where the panel is heading.

How forcefully will the panel of judges suggest that gay and lesbian rights are of interest to all American judges who care about a society with equality under the law, not just LGBT judges? Will they draw parallels with civil rights cases and minority judges, an indication they see gay rights on par with issues like interracial marriage, segregation and racial discrimination?

It may shed some light on where the panel is ultimately heading on the issue that is central to the appeal: Whether to uphold Judge Walker's decision striking down Prop. 8. That decision will likely come next year, but not before the panel also rules on whether Prop. 8 proponents have legal standing to file the appeal in the first case.

The wheels of justice do grind slowly!

 

 


9th Circuit: Don't release the trial tapes

Comments Off

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals isn't known for being cautious or conservative. But the three-judge panel hearing the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision striking down Prop. 8 issued an order stopping Friday's scheduled release of the trial video tapes.

Earlier this month Judge James Ware, Chief of the Northern District, rejected arguments from Prop. 8 backers that the protective seal on the tapes should be extended. Ware ordered the tapes released September 30th -- unless a higher court extends the protective order.

The 9th Circuit hasn't done that -- not yet -- but they do want to hear the case and set a relatively leisurely pace for briefings. Could it be they don't want to send this issue back to the U.S. Supreme Court, which put the kabosh on broadcasting the trial back in January of 2010?

At this rate the 9th Circuit Court could decide the legal merits of this case before they even get to video tapes issue. Or they could just be wanting to slow everything down in hopes of keeping it off the U.S. Supreme Court's docket during a presidential election.


Prop. 8 Videos Released -- Almost.

Comments Off

Video tapes of the 12-day federal trial over the constitutionality of Prop. 8 may soon be available for viewing.

Federal Judge James Ware  Monday released a 16-page decision in which he found "no compelling reasons" to keep the tapes sealed now that the trial is over … writing that the videos are part of the official judicial record. Ware wrote that releasing them furthers transparency and public trust in the justice system.

Judge Ware also rejected arguments from Prop. 8 backers that unsealing the tapes would have a chilling effect on their witnesses, saying that was “unsupported hypothesis or conjecture.”

The ruling is the latest in a string of legal defeats for Prop. 8 supporters, who are currently appealing last year's decision by (now retired) Judge Vaughn Walker striking down the same sex marriage ban as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Like all decisions in this long and winding legal road, this one will surely be appealed. In fact, an attorney for Prop. 8, anticipating Monday's decision, asked for a stay during the oral arguments in late August. Judge Ware today granted that stay until September 30th. It will be lifted at that time unless a higher court (the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Supreme Court) grants a further stay.

Of course it's not like the composition of the tapes is secret. A written transcript of the proceedings exists, as does a verbatim re-enactment based on the those transcripts. And in case that's not enough, "8", a Broadway play by Academy Award winning writer Dustin Lance Black will have its first reading in NYC Tuesday. Among those participating are Morgan Freeman, Cheyenne Jackson and Marisa Tomei.


Trial Videos Squabble A Warm Up to Main Event

Comments Off

At today's hearing on whether to release the Prop. 8 trial recordings, Federal Judge James Ware noted that on his way into the building this morning he saw a woman holding a sign that read "Free the Tapes."

That elicited giggles in the courtroom (the woman later showed up to a post-hearing press conference with her now-famous sign) but Judge Ware used it to underscore the legal question he's facing: Whether to lift the protective order trial court Judge Vaughn Walker placed on the trial tapes. LIfting it might make the public happy, he noted. But "I am concerned about the integrity of the court and the judicial process," he added.

Judge Ware said  "I generally think it's a good thing" to allow the media more access to the courts. But he also hesitated to lift another judge's order -- an order Yes on 8 Attorneys said was an "ironclad guarantee" that the trial tapes would never be broadcast.

"These are not state secrets," said No on 8 attorney Theodore Boutrous. "They are not radio active materials. It's just a record of what happened in this courtroom" and the public should get to see them.

Judge Ware promised to make a decision quickly. But Yes on 8 attorney David Thompson asked for an immediate stay on Ware's decision should he lift the protective order. Once again with this issue, the end is really just another beginning.

Next week is the main event: Tuesday the California Supreme Court -- presumably with newly sworn-in justice Goodwin Liu -- will hear oral arguments over whether Prop. 8 sponsors have legal standing to challenge the decision striking down their ballot measure.

If they lose that legal round, backers of Prop. 8 will be very nearly out of rabbits to pull out of the hat as the 9th Circuit will almost certainly let Judge Walker's decision stand.


"Milk" Director's Next Project: Prop. 8

Comments Off

Dustin Lance Black, who snagged an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay by writing "Milk" starring Sean Penn,  has turned his talent to Prop. 8, using courtroom transcripts and interviews to create a Broadway-bound play called "8."

And befitting Black's reputation, 8 has attracted several luminaries from television and film -- including Sir Morgan Freeman, hunky Cheyenne Jackson ("Glee" and "30 Rock") and Marisa "My Cousin Vinny" Tomei. Tony-Award-winner Joe Mantello will direct.

They and the rest of the cast will be at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre in NYC September 19th for a one-night reading -- a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER).

It's an artistic echo of Prop 8: The Musical starring Jack Black as Jesus.  There was also a much, much more earnest (and not at all funny or entertaining) verbatim re-enactment of the Prop. 8 trial, based on actual court transcripts.

You may recall the trial was set to be televised live until the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in as the trial was getting underway to pull the plug. Except, the plug wasn't pulled -- and over objections of Prop. 8 backers courtroom cameras recorded the entire trial.

After retired Judge Vaughn Walker used an excerpt of the tapes in a college lecture that aired on C-Span, Prop. 8 proponents sued to force Walker (and everyone else who has copies) to turn over the tapes.

Prop. 8 opponents filed a cross motion, asking federal Judge James Ware to lift the protective order and release the tapes -- arguing legal attacks on Judge Walker's integrity (Ware rejected efforts to have Walker's Prop 8 decision overturned because Walker is gay).

Oral arguments on that motion will be heard August 29th in San Francisco.


Prop. 8 Standing Question a Close Call

Comments (2)

Months after agreeing to a request by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court has set a date (September 6th) for oral arguments to consider whether state law allows proponents of ballot measures to defend them in court when no one else will.

The 9th Circuit panel hearing the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 is awaiting the State Supreme Court's decision on standing before it returns to the merits of this appeal.

UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar says the legal question is complicated and is not easily categorized in liberal versus conservative terms.

“On the one hand you could say conservatives should not want cases to be brought in court very easily because they don’t want the courts meddling with what the Legislature does,” says Amar. “So conservatives should generally like a standing doctrine that limits access to federal courts to reduce litigation and reduce lawsuits.”

On the other hand, says Amar, “a conservative may want standing doctrine to be a little more generous to Prop. 8 backers to make sure initiatives like Prop. 8 aren’t killed by liberal elected politicians, like attorneys general and governors. So standing and issues like it sometimes invert political instincts because these doctrines are easy enough to manipulate so that you can often use them to reach a particular result in a particular dispute without binding yourself in other bind cases down the road … where your result inclinations may be different.”

If the court advises the 9th Circuit that California law does not give initiative proponents legal standing, it’s nearly certain the Prop. 8 appeal will die. And, Amar says, the chances the U.S. Supreme Court would take up an appeal of that are "infinitesimally small."

Amar adds, “the U.S. Supreme Court I think has no burning desire to weigh in on gay marriage, especially since this is only a question about California.”

One other thing: In choosing September 6th, Chief Justice Tani-Cantil Sakauye signals what we all assume: Governor Brown's nominee Goodwin Liu will be confirmed when the Commission on Judicial Appointments meets on August 31st. In addition to Cantil-Sakauye who chairs that panel, the other members are Attorney General Kamala Harris and Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles), senior presiding justice of the state Courts of Appeal. The Chief Justice is a Republican. Harris and Klein are Democrats (Klein was appointed to the bench in 1978 by Jerry Brown in his first term as governor).

This case will give us the first glimpse of how the new Chief Justice and presumably the junior member of the court, Justice-to-be-Liu, will deal with the question of same sex marriage, although the underlying issue here is standing.

You can find all the briefs filed in this case here.

For the complete interview with Vikrim Amar, click here.


Will New York Break Gay Marriage Log Jam in CA?

Comments (2)

Friday's dramatic passage of a law permitting same sex marriage in New York State raises the obvious question: What does this mean for California? The answer? A squishy "too soon to tell."  

New York has a set of circumstances unique to that state, including an extremely popular Catholic governor with an openly gay "brother-in-law"; relatively liberal Republican legislators; Wall Street Republicanswilling to buck up wobbling GOP legislators, strong public support for gay marriage (58% in recent polls) and the ability to write the law in a way that allayed concerns of the Catholic Church .

Here in California, Prop. 8 is mired in legal battle. While supporters of same sex marriage have won important legal victories, including the recent rejection of a motion  to strike down Vaughn Walker's Prop. 8 decision, the issue is in some ways on the slow track.

The appeal of Walker's decision is stalled at the 9th Circuit, which awaits legal advice from the California Supreme Court on whether Prop. 8 backers have legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision. A date for oral arguments has not been set. It was thought to happen in September, but until a 7th justice is appointed by Governor Brown to replace retired justice Carlos Moreno my guess is the court will be reluctant to schedule it. Otherwise there's a risk that a random Appeals Court judge will sit in as the 7th justice and take part in the decision -- not a good scenario for the new Chief Justice.

As for the politics, insiders say it's highly unlikely gay marriage will be back on the ballot in California before Prop 8 plays out in court. That could be 2012 or 13 ... meaning the 2014 ballot at the earliest. Reason: Who wants to fund a ballot measure that could lose and undermine what is so far a successful legal challenge in federal court?

So, as for the impact of New York on California? It surely makes same sex marriage more broadly available and therefore less "marginal" in the U.S. That could affect judges, including Anthony Kennedy who most agree is the key US Supreme Court justice on this issue. They often don't like to get too far out in front of the public.

That said, at least two other states -- Minnesota and N. Carolina -- are said to be considering ballot measures banning gay marriage. So -- this issue is far from done.


Prop. 8 Judge Could Rule Tuesday

Comments Off

At the end of Monday's 3-hour long oral arguments, District Court Judge James Ware said he hoped to have a written ruling on the motion to have Judge Vaughn Walker's Prop 8 ruling vacated "within 24 hours".

The bottom line issue: Did Judge Walker have a duty to recuse himself from the Prop. 8 trial or at the very least disclose he was in a same sex relationship. Prop. 8 lawyers say that left him "in the same shoes" as the two same sex couples before him, with a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case.

Both sides more or less stuck to their pre-trial briefing. Judge Ware homed in on whether the standard for recusal is subjective or objective -- and how a personal interest differed from a financial interest.

There was some fun back and forth with Judge Ware and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper about relationships. Cooper asserted that people in a 10-year relationship like Walker's would "ordinarily have an interest in marriage." Ware: "Isn't that an assumption -- not all long term relationships lead to marriage." Cooper said only long term platonic relationships are not assumed to head toward marriage.

Ware asked repeatedly: "Do you have evidence Judge Ware was interested in marriage? Or are you saying the fact that he didn't disclose it is evidence that he wanted to get married." Then, "how does failure to disclose his relationship indicate he wanted to get married?"

Ware noted that Cooper never answered the question, which could well come back to haunt him.

Ware, who is African American, asked if a reasonable person thought a Black judge couldn't be impartial on a civil rights case was that sufficient for a judge to recuse? Cooper said it was not.

Then Ware asked: Is there anything about being in a same sex relationship that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that a judge could not be unbiased.

Ware also asked if a female judge who had been raped should have to disclose that in a trial about sexual assault.

The line of questioning strongly suggests Judge Ware will reject the Motion  to vacate Judge Walker's decision.