6th Circuit Allows Gay Marriage Bans

In a divided decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has backed same-sex marriage bans in four states, leading to speculation that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually tackle the issue. Reports the Vox.com news site: “Beyond stopping same-sex couples from marrying in several states, the decision makes it very likely that the Supreme Court will now step in to decide the issue of same-sex marriage.” 
 
Vox offers some background: “[The] nation’s highest court previously side-stepped the debate, largely because all circuit courts had been in agreement that states’ same-sex marriage bans violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The decision not to act sparked a wave of court rulings ending same-sex marriage bans in several states, from Idaho to North Carolina.”
 

Feds Demanding Interpreters In Civil Cases

In a situation sure to echo nationally, California is scrambling to “voluntarily” remedy a civil rights violation for not providing interpreters in certain civil cases, The Los Angeles Times reports. The Times notes that “… unlike those charged with a crime, people in civil court do not have the constitutional right to an interpreter. For many of California’s nearly 7 million limited-English proficient speakers — about one-third of whom live in Los Angeles County — that makes the system practically impenetrable… the problem led the U.S. Department of Justice last year to conclude that L.A. County and the state’s Judicial Council were violating the Civil Rights Act.
 
The Times explained that the investigation “was prompted by a complaint filed by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles on behalf of two low-income clients. One had been sexually assaulted and sought a restraining order against her attacker; the other had filed for custody and child support for her son. Both were denied Korean interpreters. Federal authorities have given California the chance to voluntarily improve services. But failure to make the court system accessible to all could result in federal intervention.”
 
The Times story comes in a context of diminished civil court services and delays in family court, among other challenges. Top court officials have said mere access to courts become a civil rights issue.
 

Election May Be Peak Of Obama’s Court-Appointment Power

The Los Angeles Times is noting that a Republican takeover of the United States Senate would likely mean that President Obama’s ability to control federal judicial appointments has peaked. The Times also notes that “… legal experts say it’s a record of unprecedented achievements in judicial diversity. Women make up 42% of his confirmed nominees, more than double the average of his five predecessors combined, while African Americans make up 18% and Latinos 6%. Eleven
Photo from the LA Times report, "Obama's best chance to influence the judiciary may be passing," 11/2/14

Photo from the LA Times report, “Obama’s best chance to influence the judiciary may be passing,” 11/2/14


openly gay judges now serve…”
 
There are still vacant seats, but you may recall the dust-up last November when Senate Democrats nixed the longtime filibuster rule for most judicial nominations, which allowed the president to select more liberal judges who would have had no chance under the old rules. 
 
Less well known, after the filibuster change, is that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy has continued what the Times calls a “… strict interpretation of arcane committee traditions, which effectively granted veto power over nominations to home-state senators.” That means the “… logjam was broken only in the 19 states with two Democratic senators. Often Obama has declined to nominate judges in states with Republican senators, leaving seven crucial appeals court seats, including the one on the 7th Circuit in Chicago, without a nominee.”
 
If you wonder what the election means for the nation’s courts, start with this LA Times report.