ILNews

Indiana attorney general appeals marriage ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General is fighting Wednesday’s decision that overturned the state’s marriage law.

Chief Judge Richard Young, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, issued a ruling that Indiana’s law prohibiting marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Shortly after the decision was rendered, Attorney General Greg Zoeller indicated his office would appeal.

Late Wednesday, the attorney general’s office announced it had filed an emergency motion for stay in the U.S. District Court pending appeal. The motion asked Young to postpone the implementation of his order.

“The motion for stay is intended to prevent confusion and inconsistency between county clerk’s offices regarding license issuance, while the appeal is pending,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s office.

The U.S. District Court has not ruled yet on the state’s motion to stay.

In addition, the AG’s office, along with Boone and Hamilton county clerks, filed a notice of appeal formally notifying the U.S. District Court that the defendants will appeal Young’s order to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Once Young issued his ruling, county clerk’s office around the state began fielding requests from same-sex couples for marriage licenses. Some clerk’s issued the licenses but others did not, saying they were awaiting guidance from the attorney general.

According to Corbin, the AG’s office advised the five county clerks named in lawsuits (Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter and Lake) that they must comply with the U.S. District Court’s ruling or they would be subject to contempt of court.

“Other county clerks in the remaining counties are not under direct jurisdiction of the order,” Corbin said, “but as an officer of the court, the Attorney General’s Office must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued.”


 


 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT