We assume Monday will be the last day, but Lyle will report back.
The right to same sex marriage came into the law pretty quickly; this decision in Johnson might have moved even faster.
When Justice Scalia floated the idea that ACCA was unconstitutionally vague several years ago, it looked like a kind of scream into the wind. Now, it has the support of SIX Justices.
Back to marriage -- the majority opinion rejects the claim that marriage is about procreation, even while saying that protecting children of same-sex couples supports the Court's ruling: "This is not to say that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State."
The Chief Justice in his oral announcement took some of the edge off of his denunciation of the Court (reviving the Lochner principle of liberty, e.g.) with an encouragement to gay people to celebrate what they the newly one, but says don't celebrate the Constitution; "that had nothing to do with it."
Just heard the buzzer. Sounds like the Justices have left the bench.
A few people are asking when the Obergefell decision takes effect. The opinion doesn't speak to this, and so we should expect it to take effect basically immediately--which is the norm in Supreme court cases. It doesn't look like there's anything for the lower courts to do on remand except issue an injunction saying that these marriage bans are unlawful.
Monday will indeed be the last day, releasing all of the remaining opinions. So that would be, to review, Arizona redistricting, Clean Air Act, and Glossip v. Gross (lethal injection).
I'm going to go ahead and get to work with my Plain English coverage of the decision, but Kevin, Tejinder, and Eric will stick around for a while to answer your questions. Thanks very much for joining us on this momentous day at the Court.
FYI, something is going on in the main hall of the Supreme Court. The police are evacuating the room and forcing everybody outside. We at blog HQ are undisturbed.
Also, a few of our commentators are having tech difficulties (we have connections through cell phone only). We're trying to get back up with it ASAP.
A couple of commentators have said that same sex marriages are being performed in Ohio as we speak.
We're getting lots of comments from all over the country where courts and clerk's offices are now performing same sex marriage.
Many studious legal scholars find themselves puzzled by Justice Kennedy's approach to these cases, which seems like to be both a fundamental rights / due process holding and an equal protection holding, all rolled into one
We now have confirmation that the rush out of the courtroom was simply them clearing it, as they do every day. No emergency.
But I think you can really see what he's talking about at the end of this opinion: For him, at least, it is the fact that the law treats marriage with such dignity that makes the exclusion of some a constitutional problem. The right is to "equal dignity."
Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence was, many thought, super-heated. In Windsor, his dissent was far more measured--focused on democracy rather than gay marriage as such. Today's dissent swings the pendulum way past where it started. He calls Justice Kennedy's opinion one that is "straining to be memorable." It is an unusually forward way of leveling an accusation that usually stays below the surface.
We've had a few questions about what the effects of the Obergefell decision will be for things like adoption and other benefits. The opinion doesn't get into these in detail, but there's a telling part of Chief Justice Roberts' dissent where he says that he thinks the equal protection argument would be stronger if a state was trying to deny tangible benefits to same sex couples (as opposed to, for example, letting them have an equivalent union like a civil union). Based on that, there is probably a supermajority on the Court that thinks same sex couples should be able to adopt on equal terms with opposite sex ones. But how that will play out in the courts remains to be seen.
Thanks so much for joining us. There are a few more opinions still to go - we'll be back on Monday.