United States Ninth Circuit

In a case brought by two California men who wished to marry each other, orders abstaining as to constitutional claims attacking state laws and ruling adversely to plaintiffs on federal constitutional claims are affirmed and reversed in part where plaintiffs lacked standing for their attacks on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the district court properly abstained from deciding their constitutional attacks on state laws precluding them from obtaining a marriage license.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/04/2006
• Decided 05/05/2006
• Published 05/05/2006

Judges

• FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge., Before FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard C. Gilbert, Diane J. Marlowe, Law Offices of Gilbert & Marlowe, Santa Ana, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants., Christopher F. Stoll, Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for amicus curiae Equality California., Steven W. Fitschen, Virginia Beach, VA, for amicus curiae National Legal Foundation.


• For Appellees:
  
• Teri L. Maksoudian, Santa Ana, CA, for County of Orange and County Clerk of Orange County;  Christopher E. Krueger, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and the California Department of Health Services;  August E. Flentje and Gregory G. Katsas (argued), U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for the United States of America, defendants-appellees., Byron J. Babione (argued), Glen Lavy, Dale Showengerdt, Benjamin W. Bull, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ, for Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund;  Rena M. Lindevaldsen, Liberty Counsel, Longwood, FL, for Campaign for California Familes, defendant-intervenors-appellees.