ILNews

Hearing on motion for TRO on marriage statute Thursday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The multiple challenges to Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage are picking up steam with the federal court scheduling arguments regarding a temporary restraining order and the state filing a motion to dismiss one of the lawsuits.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana will hear arguments this week regarding the motion for a temporary restraining order filed on behalf of one of the same-sex couples in Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al.  

Nicole Rai Quasney and Amy Melissa Sandler have asked the court to require Indiana to recognize their marriage performed in Massachusetts. According to court documents, Quasney is battling an aggressive ovarian cancer and wants the state to identify her as “married” on her death certificate as well as specify Sandler as her “surviving spouse.”

After a teleconference April 4 between Young and the attorneys on the motion, the judge scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. CDT Thursday at the federal building in Evansville.

Lambda Legal filed Baskin March 10. Multiple calls Monday to the national organization were not returned.

Also on April 4, the Indiana attorney general filed a motion to dismiss Love, et al. v. Pence, arguing the sole defendant named in the complaint, Gov. Mike Pence, cannot provide any relief.

The Love complaint was filed on behalf of four couples by a team of Kentucky lawyers who successfully challenged Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban. It was the first challenge filed this year to Indiana’s marriage statute.
 
The state presents two arguments in its motion. First, since the governor does not issue marriage licenses nor perform any function that recognizes marriages solemnized in other states, the District Court lacks jurisdiction under Article III. Second, because the governor does not enforce the state’s marriage statute, sovereign immunity and the 11th Amendment bar the complaint.

The five lawsuits challenging the marriage statute have been assigned to Young.

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT