ILNews

2 attorneys to argue for same-sex marriage before 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a rare move, two attorneys will share the podium and argue before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that Indiana’s law defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

The federal appellate court in Chicago will hear arguments in Indiana’s and Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage cases Aug. 26. The court added the day to its calendar especially for the marriage lawsuits.

The parties in the Indiana case will start the court session at 9:30 a.m. (CDT).

Three cases from Indiana – Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., brought by Lambda Legal; Fujii, et al. v. Commissioner, et al., brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana; and Lee, at al. v. Abbott, et al., brought by a group of attorneys led by William Groth – were consolidated and will be presented in one argument.

Since three cases are challenging Indiana’s law, Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said splitting the arguments between different attorneys made sense. He has shared arguments in other cases but Falk admitted the practice is “relatively rare.”

Falk and Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, will argue on behalf of the Indiana same-sex couples. Taylor will be at the podium for eight minutes and Falk for 12 minutes.

Prior to their appearance at the 7th Circuit, the same-sex couples’ attorneys will be mooting the case in a videoconference.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, who has defended the state’s marriage law since the lawsuits were filed in March, will deliver the argument for the state.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT