VIRGINA: Ted Olson's Law Firm Wins Settlement In Same-Sex Marriage Case

From the Associated Press:

Virginia will pay $520,000 to the lawyers for two same-sex couples who successfully challenged the state’s gay marriage ban. The settlement agreement was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Norfolk. The attorneys had sought more than $1.7 million. The law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher will receive $459,000. Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock will receive $61,000. Court papers show that attorneys logged 2,372 hours on the case. Their fees will be paid by the state Department of Treasury’s Division of Risk Management.

Ted Olson is a partner in the first firm. The settlement comes out to about $219 per billed hour.

Ted Olson Vs Tony Perkins On Fox News

Fox To Host Marriage Debate Between Ted Olson And Hate Group Head Tony Perkins

Via press release from Fox News:

Both sides in the same-sex marriage debate are looking to the Supreme Court as it decides whether or not to weigh in on the issue. The High Court is set to discuss cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, and decide whether to rule on petitions challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. We’ll debate what has become a key social issue within the country, exclusively with Ted Olson, former Solicitor General who served as Co-Counsel for the plaintiffs in Virginia’s same-sex marriage case, and Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council.

The debate airs live at 10AM this Sunday. Olson and Perkins tangled on the same show back in October after the Supreme Court refused to consider appeals out of several states.

RELATED: Buzzfeed reporter Chris Geidner believes we might get word from SCOTUS tomorrow immediately after its conference to consider the appeals out of the Sixth Circuit.

There is a slight — but unlikely — possibility that the court could wait until Tuesday, Jan. 20, to announce whether it will be hearing a case, but that is unlikely. Usually, at this point in the court’s term, such an announcement would be expected Friday afternoon. Then, if a case is accepted, the timeline starts for the filing of briefs by both sides and by outside parties, and arguments would be set — likely in April. Finally, a decision would be expected before the court adjourns for its summer recess — usually by late June.

Ted Olson Vs Tony Perkins

AFER attorney Ted Olson and hate group leader Tony Perkins went at it this morning on Fox News Sunday. Perkins: "You still have two circuits that have decisions coming up that look favorable toward natural marriage. I think the effect here is what you need to look at. I think the effect here is that the court did a back-alley type Roe V Wade judicial decision that let the lower courts do their evil bidding."  Olson: "We have a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights precisely because we want protections from majority rule. When the majority in a legislature or a popular vote take away rights of individuals that are protected by the Bill Of Rights, then we have an independent judiciary to rectify that situation. It's happened again and again and again throughout this country's history." Watch this.

AFER's Ted Olson: The SCOTUS Decision Was The Highlight Of My Life

"It does seem to suggest, if I was a federal judge, I would read today’s decision as saying that the opponents, if they still exist, on the Supreme Court of marriage equality have decided they don’t want to get into this and they sort of feel that the federal judges — one after the other, after the other, after the other — are getting it right and at this point they ought to just leave it alone. We believe, those of us who have been involved in this effort, that the Supreme Court having decided not to overturn or not to even review the decisions of these circuit courts ultimately will grant that same right and that same privilege to people all over the United States. To see the United States Supreme Court recognize in this way the love of these individuals and the happiness that they will soon be able to experience is the highlight of my life.” - Ted Olson, speaking to Metro Weekly.  Olson, with fellow AFER attorney David Boies, represented Timothy Bostic and Tony London in their suit against Virginia.

Which Legal Team Will Get To SCOTUS?

The New York Times reports on the "dueling" going on to be the legal team to argue for same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court.

In a half-dozen briefs filed in recent weeks, some of the best lawyers in the nation spent many pages arguing that their case was the right one in which to establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. They pointed out the attractive features of their own cases and the shortcomings of others. In legal jargon, streamlined cases without procedural pitfalls are said to be good vehicles. That made the fancy lawyers sound a little like car salesmen. The case from Virginia, one brief said, is “an excellent vehicle.” The one from Wisconsin, said another, is “an ideal vehicle.” The one from Utah, perhaps the leading candidate, was said to be, with the swagger of understatement, “an appropriate vehicle.”  The battle is for a place in the history books. Still, the sniping among the lawyers was a little unseemly, said James A. Campbell, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending the bans on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma and Virginia. “As I would read their briefs,” Mr. Campbell said of his dueling adversaries, “I would write in the margin: ‘That’s an implicit dig at this case’ and ‘That’s a dig at that case.’”

Among the teams vying to be heard are AFER, GLAD, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Freedom To Marry head Evan Wolfson: "Every attorney in the world, it seems, is now eager to be the one that stands before the court in the freedom to marry case, but what really counts is the compelling collective presentation we will all make, no matter which case it is."

AFER To SCOTUS: Hear Our Virginia Case

The American Foundation for Equal Rights today filed a SCOTUS brief which demands that the Court hear their Virginia marriage equality suit.

“Forty-seven years ago, Mildred and Richard Loving passionately argued that the Supreme Court must end the unjust laws that dare to tell us who we can and cannot love,” said Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  “Today, almost half a century later, it is time thousands of gay and lesbian couples across America are extended that same promise of equality and freedom that the Supreme Court granted to the Lovings. Our plaintiffs have already fought for, in two separate courts, a constitutional promise they have been denied. Now, the Supreme Court must take up the Bostic case, answer once and for all the surpassingly important constitutional question of marriage equality, and rule decisively in favor of the fundamental right to marry for every same-sex couple.” Bostic was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in July 2013 on behalf of two loving Virginia couples—Tim Bostic and Tony London of Norfolk, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley of Richmond—to challenge the constitutionality of Virginia’s marriage laws on the grounds that they violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The same demand has already been filed by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring and by the Alliance Defending Freedom, acting on behalf of the Norfolk County Clerk.

VIRGINIA: AFER Tells SCOTUS Not To Continue Stay On Same-Sex Marriages

Via press release:

Today, lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the Bostic case responded to a petition by defendants seeking a stay of the United States Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit’s decision that found Virginia’s marriage ban unconstitutional by urging the Supreme Court not to delay the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Virginia. The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the primary sponsor of the Bostic case.

“Virginia’s exclusion of gays and lesbians from the fundamental right to marriage causes painful, irreparable, and immeasurable injury to large numbers of its citizens every day and every moment it remains in existence, and humiliates and stigmatizes these individuals and their children in ways too numerous to enumerate,” said Ted Olson, lead co-counsel for the Bostic plaintiffs. “Courts all over the country are overwhelmingly and with an unprecedented degree of unanimity recognizing that there is no legal basis for continuing to impose this kind of harm on our fellow citizens. There is no justification for staying the effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding the rights of Virginians to marry the person they love.”

Prince William County Clerk Michèle McQuigg filed her petition to stay the Fourth Circuit Court’s mandate on Thursday, August 14, 2014. Should Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice responsible for emergency petitions made within the Fourth Circuit, deny the stay request, marriages for gay and lesbian couples would be set to begin at 8 a.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2014.

And now we wait.

VIRGINIA: County Clerk Asks Fourth Circuit Court To Continue Stay So She Can Appeal Directly To SCOTUS

With the representation of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Prince William County Clerk Michele McQuigg today filed notice with the Fourth Circuit Court that she intends to appeal their overturn of Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage to the US Supreme Court. Utah has also announced its intent to file such an appeal, but has not yet done so. Via SCOTUSblog:

McQuigg, who is the county clerk of Prince William County, a jurisdiction just south of Washington, D.C., asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to delay its July 28 decision striking down the Virginia ban on same-sex marriages. She asked for a ninety-day delay to allow her to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court, which she said her lawyers would file by October 26. Unlike most other states involved in court battles over same-sex marriage, Virginia allows its county clerks — the officers who issue marriage licenses — to be in court to defend the state ban. In other states where a defense has been mounted behind such a prohibition, state officials have done so.  The Utah and Virginia cases may not be the last of the same-sex marriage cases that could reach the Court during its coming Term, because other cases are proceeding on expedited schedules in other federal courts of appeals. The Court will have complete discretion whether to take on any of the cases, and on which one or more it might choose for reviewing the constitutional questions. The Virginia case raises both of the issues that have arisen over same-sex marriages in the past year: state power to forbid gays and lesbians to marry anew, and state power to refuse to recognize such marriages that have been performed legally in other states. McQuigg is one of two county clerks in Virginia who have come to the defense of the state ban. They took over the defense when state officials decided that they would no longer support the constitutional amendment and state laws that outlaw same-sex marriage altogether.

Back in March, the Alliance Defending Freedom represented McQuigg in her filing to join Norfolk County Clerk George Schaefer in defending against the suit brought by AFER's Ted Olson and David Boies, who now stand a stronger chance of being the team to argue what should be the final same-sex marriage case in the nation. Unless Utah gets there first. Read McQuigg's full filing.

VIRGINIA: Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals To Hear Marriage Case Tomorrow

Tomorrow the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Virginia's marriage equality case.

A three-judge panel randomly selected from the 16-member appeals court will hear arguments from lawyers for both sides. The Richmond-based 4th Circuit, once widely considered the most conservative appeals court in the country, has become more moderate with the addition of five appointees by President Barack Obama. Lawyers typically face what they call a "hot bench," which means the judges ask a lot of questions. The court usually issues its rulings several weeks, or even months, after hearing arguments. The losing side can accept the ruling, ask the full appeals court for a rehearing, or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over 50 amicus briefs have been filed from groups on both sides.

REPORT: AFER Paid $6.4 Million To Law Firms In Proposition 8 Case

Michael Lavers reports at Washington Blade:

The American Foundation for Equal Rights between 2009 and 2013 paid more than $6.4 million to two law firms that successfully argued against California’s Proposition 8. Tax filings indicate former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson’s law firm – Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP – received $1,691,714 from AFER for “legal and ancillary legal expenses” between April 23, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The organization paid the law firm $958,655 between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, and another $2,758,352 between April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP received $537,939 from AFER between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The organization also paid David Boies’ law firm – Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP – $468,089 for “legal and ancillary legal expenses” between April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.

A spokesman for AFER says the money was well-spent.

“AFER’s case resulted in the return of marriage equality in California for a fraction of the cost of a ballot measure,” AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer told the Washington Blade on Tuesday. Tax filings also indicate AFER raised $14,900,467 between April 23, 2009, and March 31, 2013, that Umhoefer told the Blade includes a “large amount” of contributions from Republican donors. He added his organization estimates the Prop 8 case also generated millions of dollars in earned media coverage for which it did not have to pay.

The Blade notes that Prop 8 backers raised $40M to place the issue on the 2008 California ballot.

VIRGINIA: AFER And Marriage Plaintiffs Hold Celebratory Press Conference

LGBT Groups React To Virginia Ruling

AFER

Through its decision today, the court has upheld the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded,” said Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. “Virginia’s prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples relegates gay and lesbian Virginians to second-class status. Laws excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage violate personal freedom, are an unnecessary government intrusion, and cause serious harm. That type of law cannot stand.” In November 2006, voters in the Commonwealth amended the state constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman and ban recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage” for gays and lesbians.  Preexisting laws also banned same-sex marriage in Virginia. “The United States Supreme Court has stated fourteen times that the freedom to marry is one of the most fundamental rights—if not the most fundamental right—of all Americans ,” said Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. “The denial of that fundamental freedom to marry the person you love and be treated with equal dignity and respect seriously harms gay and lesbian Americans and the children they are raising.” The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is the sole sponsor of Bostic v. Rainey.

Freedom To Marry

The bipartisan momentum for marriage is building at an unprecedented speed. In just the past several weeks, federal judges in Utah, Oklahoma, and Kentucky; the Attorney Generals of Virginia and Nevada; the Governor of Nevada, and now a federal judge in Virginia have all said that marriage discrimination against loving and committed gay couples is indefensible under our Constitution. There has been a fundamental shift in the legal landscape. America is ready for the freedom to marry and those couples in Virginia, on the eve of Valentine's Day, are ready to marry.

Human Rights Campaign

“Yet another court has upheld the fundamental idea that gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to full equality under the law. Nearly fifty years ago, another Virginia case struck down bans on interracial marriage across the country, and now this commonwealth brings renewed hope for an end to irrational barriers to marriage for loving and committed couples across the country. “Following recent decisions in Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio and Kentucky this Virginia ruling proves that marriage equality is once again on the fast track to the United States Supreme Court. From the South to the Midwest, this historic progress sends a message that no American should have to wait for equality, no matter where they live. “Right now this nation is divided into two Americas—one where full legal equality is nearly a reality, and the other where even the most basic protections of the law are nonexistent for loving gay and lesbian couples. We cannot and will not tolerate that patchwork of discrimination, and we won’t stop fighting until fairness and dignity reaches each and every American in all 50 states.”

Lambda Legal

“This is a wonderful day for all loving and committed couples in Virginia who want only the same protections for their families as anyone else,” said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia. “The court is right to strike down this sweeping and discriminatory ban. We congratulate the attorneys and their clients.” In her opinion, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wrote: “Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships. Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices—choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.”

Equality Virginia

This is an historic day in Virginia. By sharing our personal stories and changing hearts and minds, Equality Virginia has been working toward marriage equality in the Commonwealth of Virginia for many years. The ruling finally puts Virginia on the path toward allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry the person they love here in the place they call home. I am proud that here in Virginia we are no longer asking if the freedom to marry the person you love will be a reality, but instead we are asking when. With this ruling, we are one step closer to gaining full equality for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Virginians. Today Virginia is standing on the right side of history.

BREAKING: Judge Strikes Down Virginia's Ban On Gay Marriage, Ruling STAYED

From AFER's website:

The Federal District Court ruled that Virginia’s marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution. It said that loving couples like our plaintiffs, Tim Bostic & Tony London and Carol Schall & Mary Townley are entitled to the same basic rights and protections as every other American. This is a monumental victory—for Virginia and our country—and the first of its kind for a state in the South. While the decision will not go into effect immediately—it has been stayed pending appeal—this is a great cause for celebration.

UPDATE: The judge's 41-page ruling begins with a quote from Mildred Loving.

UPDATE II: Fugelsang nails it. Heh.

VIRGINIA: Judge Promises To Rule "Soon" In AFER's Marriage Equality Lawsuit

The judge hearing opening arguments in AFER's marriage equality lawsuit against Virginia ended today's proceedings by promising to make her ruling "soon."

Virginia Solicitor General Stuart A. Raphael compared the state constitutional amendment banning such unions to the commonwealth’s previous defense of segregation, a ban on interracial marriage and resistance to admitting women to VMI — all decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. “We are not going to make the mistakes our predecessors made,” Raphael told U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen. Wright Allen did not ask a question of any of the five lawyers who addressed her during the nearly two hours of arguments but said she will rule quickly on an issue that all agreed will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court. “You’ll be hearing from me soon,” she said, emphasizing the last word.

The case is being defended on behalf of two Virgina county clerks by the virulently anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom, who presumably did not mention their former co-worker who is now serving 40 years in prison for making child pornography with her daughter.

RELATED: Judge Allen, a former member of the Navy JAG Corps, was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama in 2010. Allen was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2011 after an endorsement floor speech by former Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. 

TODAY: NOM To Rally Virginia Haters Outside Courthouse Hearing AFER Suit

AFER attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies will today make opening oral arguments in their marriage equality lawsuit against the state of Virginia, which was joined last month by state Attorney General Mark Herring. Protesting outside the courthouse will be supporters of NOM and the Family Foundation. Speaking at the rally will be Family Research Council vice president Josh Duggar. At this writing, a grand total of 42 people have joined the rally's Facebook page. Oral arguments are expected to last two and half hours.

VIRGINIA: House Advances Bill To Give Itself Standing To Defend Marriage Ban

The Virginia House today advanced a bill that would (they claim) give members of the chamber standing to defend the state's marriage ban in federal court.

Del C. Todd Gilbert’s measure, which will be on the House floor for a final vote Monday, includes an amendment by Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William [PHOTO]. The amendment would also give the House of Delegates, the state Senate or the entire General Assembly standing to file suit in federal court. “We do not want to end up in a position like the people of California who voted for Proposition 8 and were abandoned by their attorney general and their governor,” Marshall said. Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico, questioned the proposal's constitutionality. “No state legislature can give itself such standing,” Morrissey said. “This bill cannot under any circumstance withstand a challenge in federal court. If you don't want to embarrass yourselves, you will resist the temptation and move that finger from the green to the red,” he said.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe is expected to veto the bill should it pass in both state chambers.

RELATED: Yesterday's scheduled opening arguments in federal court, which were canceled due to weather, have been rescheduled for Tuesday at 10AM.

The hearing is expected to last two and a half hours. AFER’s attorneys will make the case that bans on marriage for gay and lesbian couples, like that in Virginia, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs are two couples: Tim and Tony, who have been together for nearly 25 years, and Carol and Mary, who have been together for nearly 30 years. This is the first time the plaintiffs are appearing in court.

(Tipped by JMG reader Rob)

VIRGINA: Opening Arguments In Marriage Equality Case Set For Thursday

Last week Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced that he would not defend his state against marriage equality lawsuits and would join the suit filed by AFER. That prompted AFER to call for an immediate summary judgement. But the judge today scheduled opening arguments for Thursday. Here's her order, via Buzzfeed:

NOTE — the Court sets the following Order of Presentation for oral argument at the hearing: Counsel for Plaintiffs present opening argument for no more than twenty minutes; Counsel for Defendant Rainey present argument for no more than twenty minutes; Counsel for Defendant Schaefer, III, present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Intervenor McQuigg present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Amicus The Family Foundation of Virginia present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Amici Professors in Support of Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment present argument for no more than thirty minutes; Counsel for Plaintiffs present rebuttal for up to ten minutes; and Counsel for Defendant Rainey present rebuttal for up to ten minutes.

The judge has indicated that she will not rule at the conclusion of Thursday's proceedings.

Prop 8 Doc Wins Sundance Prize

Yesterday The Case Against 8 won the Best Documentary Direction prize at the Sundance Film Festival.

The Case Against 8 / U.S.A. (Directors: Ben Cotner, Ryan White) — A behind-the-scenes look inside the case to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Shot over five years, the film follows the unlikely team that took the first federal marriage equality lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. Directors say they met at Sundance five years ago and also thank the “incredibly inspiring people we were able to follow around for 5 years.” They also thank HBO and the lawyers who “showed that civil rights know no boundaries.”

The film airs on HBO in June.

VIRGINIA: Olson & Boies Tell Court To Immediately Rule In Favor Of Marriage

Via press release from AFER:

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsor of Bostic v. Rainey, the federal constitutional challenge to Virginia’s discriminatory Marriage Amendment, issued the following statement regarding U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s order seeking Status Reports from all parties in the case regarding whether oral argument on the issues presented is warranted or whether the Court should rule promptly on the briefs without a hearing: “Every day these discriminatory laws remain in effect is another day gay and lesbian Virginians and their families are harmed and treated as second-class citizens,” said AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer. “We urge Judge Allen to proceed immediately to judgment and find Virginia’s laws banning marriage for gay and lesbian couples unconstitutional." The Judge’s order was issued following the compelling Notice from the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia that the Attorney General concluded that Virginia's laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If a hearing is deemed necessary, oral argument will be heard at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at 9 a.m. ET on Thursday, January 30, 2014.

Bolding is mine. Zoom, zoom, zoom?