The Washington Post

Scalia finds his predictions on same-sex-marriage ruling being borne out

Reporter

As smart as they are, Supreme Court justices sometimes falter when they predict the consequences of their decisions.

Dissenting justices are usually the most vocal, forecasting far-reaching and often calamitous results from what they see as the poorly reasoned rulings of the majority. Regardless of the ideology of the justice issuing the doomsday warnings, they often do not live up to the hyperbole.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. View Archive

So give Justice Antonin Scalia credit — or condolences.

When the court last June struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and said the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages performed in those states where it was legal, Scalia sounded a loud warning.

While the five-member majority of the court said it was not deciding whether a constitutional right to marriage must be extended to same-sex couples, Scalia said the reasoning of the decision made that outcome practically preordained.

“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here,” Scalia wrote.

Instead, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote, and such suits are a “second . . . shoe to be dropped later.”

Scalia’s words have been highlighted in the two recent decisions about same-sex marriage that will return the issue to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Black cited the dissent in a ruling that said Ohio, which bans same-sex unions, must recognize on a death certificate a marriage that was performed in another state.

“Just as Justice Scalia predicted — the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples . . . simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004),” wrote Black (the ellipses and parenthesis are his).

“Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”

In Utah, where just before Christmas a federal judge struck down that state’s constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex unions, Scalia’s words played a prominent role both in the challengers’ arguments and the ruling.

Attorneys Peggy A. Tomsic and James E. Magleby, representing a gay male couple and two lesbian couples, relied in part on Scalia’s interpretation of the majority’s DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor.

Scalia, they said, recognized the opinion “for what it is: a holding that would bind lower courts, such as this court, if presented a constitutional challenge to state laws banning same-sex marriage.”

In their filings, the lawyers bold-faced the Scalia dissent for emphasis:

(“[T]he view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking in today’s opinion. . . . [T]he real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages. . . . How easy is it, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”)

And U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby mentioned Scalia’s dissent throughout his lengthy opinion and concluded: “The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.”

Of course, Scalia did not say in his Windsor dissent that lower courts must adopt such an interpretation.

“Lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today’s case when the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples,” he wrote, adding: “Lord, an opinion with such scatter-shot rationales as this one . . . can be distinguished in many ways.”

Still, as Scalia pointed out, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s DOMA decision practically provided a blueprint for how such challenges might be successful.

It is not surprising that judges might want to quote a conservative justice when striking down what voters have put in place. Ohio and Utah voters amended their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriages in 2004, along with other states. Black and Shelby were nominated by President Obama.

Shelby’s decision, and his reliance on Scalia, has gotten the most attention from legal commentators. “In Striking Down Utah’s Gay Marriage Ban, Judge Gives Scalia Big Bear Hug,” read the headline on the liberal Talking Points Memo.

And University of Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone set off a hot debate on the legal website Balkinization when he wrote that Shelby’s opinion “would have appeared considerably more judicial had he resisted the urge to give Justice Scalia the finger.”

Shelby, 43, does not have the reputation as a firebrand. He had been on the bench only six months when he was assigned the same-sex marriage case Kitchen v. Herbert. He was previously a Salt Lake City lawyer and was honored for his service in Operation Desert Storm while in the Utah National Guard.

He was endorsed by both of Utah’s Republican senators, and Sen. Mike Lee, a constitutional conservative popular with the tea party movement, called Shelby “preeminently qualified” and predicted he would be “an outstanding judge.”

The state of Utah has said it will ask the Supreme Court to stay Shelby’s ruling and stop same-sex marriages while an appeals court considers the merits of the decision. Shelby and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver noted the state failed initially to ask for a stay and has not proven the kind of harm that would warrant one.

In the meantime, marriages in Utah have broken records, according to a review in the Salt Lake Tribune. By last Thursday, the newspaper reported, more than 900 same-sex couples had been married across the state, despite the holiday and some counties refusing to issue licenses until Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) directed them to follow Shelby’s order.

According to estimates from the plaintiffs’ filing in the court, that is about one-fourth of the gay couples living in the state.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
New Hampshire has voted. The Democrats debate Thursday. Get caught up on the race.
The big questions after New Hampshire, from The Post's Dan Balz
Can Bernie Sanders cut into Hillary Clinton's strength in the minority community and turn his challenge into a genuine threat? And can any of the Republicans consolidate anti-Trump sentiment in the party in time to stop the billionaire developer and reality-TV star, whose unorthodox, nationalistic campaign has shaken the foundations of American politics?
What happened in New Hampshire
Spending per vote
John Kasich is running one of the most cost-efficient campaigns, bested only by Donald Trump. Ben Carson, however, has spent a lot for a fourth-place finish in Iowa and eight-place finish in New Hampshire. Data is available through the end of December.
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
What happened in N.H.

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.