WASHINGTON, DC—Today counsel representing all plaintiffs from the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee marriage lawsuits submitted a proposal to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that argument time be divided equally among the cases from the four states.
The Court previously allocated 45 minutes each to petitioners and respondents to Question 1 (“Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”) and 30 minutes each to petitioners and respondents to Question 2 (“Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”). [pullquote]“We have an incredible wealth of talent available to argue on behalf of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry and right to have their marriages recognized in all fifty states. …”[/pullquote]
The proposal requests that two segments of 15 minutes each be allotted on Question 1 to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Kentucky and Michigan cases (in addition to the 15 minutes that the U.S. Solicitor General has requested on that question) and that two segments of 15 minutes each be allotted on Question 2 to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Ohio and Tennessee cases.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights and private counsel partners representing couples from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee issued the following statement:
“We have an incredible wealth of talent available to argue on behalf of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry and right to have their marriages recognized in all fifty states. Each of the attorneys who argue will stand on the shoulders of thousands in the movement who worked for decades for this day to arrive and will have the best minds helping them prepare. We look forward to this historic opportunity for advocates from each case to present our compelling arguments to the Court and to share this defining moment with our entire community and the nation.”
Read more about Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear, on the ACLU’s case page here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/bourke-v-beshear-freedom-marry-kentucky.
Read more about Deboer v. Snyder on GLAD’s case page here: www.glad.org/work/cases/deboer-v.-snyder and National Marriage Challenge’s website here: www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com.
Read more about Henry v. Hodges on Lambda Legal’s case page here: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes.
Read more about Obergefell v. Hodges on ACLU’s case page here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/obergefell-et-al-v-himes-freedom-marry-ohio.
Read more about Tanco v. Haslam, on NCLR’s case page here: www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/tanco_v_haslam/.
[From a News Release]
