Line-up of lawyers for marriage cases
on Mar 15, 2013 at 4:39 pm
The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon released the list of lawyers who will argue in the two-week sitting that begins on Monday, including the line-up of attorneys who will argue the same-sex marriage cases in the second week of that sitting. The schedule for the marriage cases appears below the jump.
Tuesday, March 26, 10 a.m. — Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144):
Combined, one hour of oral argument on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and on the question of “standing” to appeal for the sponsors of that ballot measure:
For the sponsors: Charles J. Cooper of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Cooper and Kirk, thirty minutes
For the two California same-sex couples who challenged the measure, Theodore B. Olson of the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, twenty minutes.
For the Obama administration, as an amicus opposing Proposition 8’s validity, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., ten minutes.
Wednesday, March 27, 10 a.m. — United States v. Windsor (12-307):
Separate arguments on the Court’s authority to decide this case, and on the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act’s Section 3, denying federal marital benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Fifty-minute argument on the question of the Court’s jurisdiction to decide this case:
Arguing against jurisdiction, Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard law professor, amica appointed by the Court to oppose jurisdiction, twenty minutes
Arguing for the government’s right to appeal, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, representing the federal government, fifteen minutes
Arguing for a right to appeal for the House Republican leaders (the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s majority members), Paul D. Clement of the Washington office of Bancroft PLLC, fifteen minutes.
One-hour argument on the constitutionality of DOMA:
Defending constitutionality, attorney Clement, representing the House Republican leaders (BLAG’s majority), thirty minutes
Challenging constitutionality, Solicitor General Verrilli, for the federal government, fifteen minutes
Challenging constitutionality, Roberta A. Kaplan of the New York office of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, representing Edith Windsor of New York City, who sued over Section 3 of DOMA, fifteen minutes.
