Gay Marriage | News | Wisconsin

Federal Judge Won't Block Wisconsin's Gay Marriage Ban During Court Challenge But Will Move Quickly

Last week, the ACLU filed a motion seeking an injunction blocking Wisconsin's gay marriage ban during the court challenge. U.S. District Court Judge said on Tuesday that she probably won't block it since it would be immediately challenged, the Wisconsin State Journal reports:

Crabb“Of course, the premise of a preliminary injunction is that relief is needed now and cannot wait until the case is fully litigated,” Crabb wrote. “If a preliminary injunction must be stayed as soon as it is entered, it is not clear what purpose it serves.”

Crabb said she'll deny the motion if it isn't withdrawn. She also said "the case will proceed to summary judgment on an expedited schedule.”

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. She also said "the case will proceed to summary judgement on an expedited schedule.” Also if I'm correct Andy you left off her name, just mentioning her last name in the statement.

    Sounds like she's already made up her mind on the legal status of the ban. Summary judgement on an expedited schedule, if my legalese is correct, means she's already looking over the case and decided based upon other precedence that the ban is illegal. Of course, she could be thinking the other way, too; however unlikely in light of the recent findings in the other circuits. But this case is in the 7th circuit which I think is a new one to be added to the list of 5th, 6th, and 10th which have proceedings ongoing on the same issue. More overall good news. My hubby and I married on our 24th anniversary last fall here in CA.

    Posted by: steven | Mar 5, 2014 2:54:18 PM


  2. That judge in Texas could learn a thing or two from this one.

    Posted by: TKinSC | Mar 5, 2014 2:58:33 PM


  3. I know one of the couples in the TX case. I'm surprised its made it this far, but considering the judges there deal w/ TX, LA, MS I'm jaw-dropping it's going this fast

    Posted by: steven | Mar 5, 2014 3:09:21 PM


  4. "If a preliminary injunction must be stayed as soon as it is entered..."

    Consider that the judge in the Texas case did the wrong thing by staying that injunction. Crabb is correct that in the Texas case, "it is not clear what purpose [the injunction] serves."

    However, in this Wisconsin case, Crabb is prejudging what the appeals court will do, and that is definitely not her place. She should decide the injunction as it should be decided, on the likelihood of success, and the harm of constitutional violations. And she should not stay that decision.

    Posted by: Randy | Mar 5, 2014 3:11:08 PM


  5. A temporary injunction would have meant a great deal to one of the parties involved here. He was in a coma and his father wanted to pull his life support. His husband got a court order recognizing his power of attorney to prevent it but you can see the importance of the temporary injunction when it is in fact life and death. How rare is it for a civil rights case to ask for a temporary injunction? Does the harm have to be life and death? Why is denial of fundamental rights not grounds enough?

    Texas Judge Garcia ruled in favor of the temporary injunction but stayed it citing SCOTUS hold on Shelby's ruling as precedent. All Federal Justices since Shelby have stayed their decisions. Justices using that line of reasoning are mitigating the harm done in denying fundamental rights. They shouldn't. If you can go the extra distance in proving your case for temporary injunction then it should be so ordered. Those barriers are set that high for a reason.

    I would like to see Judge Crabb give them the opportunity to prove their case and if they do so to issue the temporary injunction without a stay. Make Wisconsin go through the appeal to the Seventh and see what they say or on to SCOTUS if need be. When you've met the standards set for a temporary injunction then it should be granted.

    Posted by: SERIOUSLY | Mar 5, 2014 3:57:15 PM


  6. "Sounds like she's already made up her mind on the legal status of the ban."

    Doesn't sound that way to me. Summary judgement just means they'll skip the trial, most likely because both sides agree on what the facts are. Expedited schedule means the court will set deadlines for filing paperwork that are shorter than what it typically sets. That doesn't mean the paperwork is a mere formality. It will undoubtedly be integral to the judge's decision. Deciding a case takes a lot of research, and the judge will be relying on the lawyers to do that research, to vet each other's work, and to submit their findings to the court. If the judge waits for the lawyers to do their work, she'll have a much easier time deciding the case. That's how courts normally distribute the work and arrive at decisions, and there's nothing here to suggest this case is any different.

    Posted by: JJ | Mar 5, 2014 10:24:02 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Brian Eno and Underworld Frontman Karl Hyde Collaborate on 'The Satellites': LISTEN« «