DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341, is one of six cases, consolidated on appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing same sex marriage. In a 2-1 decision on November 6, the 6th Circuit became the first circuit court which refused to permit same sex marriage in the aftermath of Windsor v. United States.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a well-known conservative judge from Ohio. The case is about process, Judge Sutton tells us. His second sentence reads:  “From the vantage point of 2014, it would now seem, the question is not whether American law will allow gay couples to marry; it is when and how that will happen.”

Judge Sutton

I was writing about the 6th Circuit decision in DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341. In a 2-1 ruling the Court reversed trial court rulings which gave same-sex couples the right to marry. The majority opinion is long, interesting and engaging and, in the opinion of the dissenting judge (and me), it totally misses the point. Nevertheless, the decision creates a split in the circuits, making it highly likely that the Court will take up same-sex marriage. (I will write about DeBoer soon.)

Alas, on Friday the Court granted certiorari in King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, so I it comes first. In King, “victims” of the Affordable Care Act challenged the federal government’s authority to provide

Monday afternoon, I attended a lecture at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe spoke for two hours, with a final one-hour panel—I had to dash—led by MRW reader Gary Stuart. For lay readers, it takes someone special for me to give up an afternoon, drive to Tempe, walking onto the ASU campus, etc., and this one was an easy call! (Three hours of continuing education credits—the early departure left me with two—factored into my decision to attend.)

The lecture grew out of Professor Tribe’s new book, Uncertain Justice:  The Roberts Court and the Constitution. Professor Tribe focused on four segments, or quartets, given each about 30 minutes.

The U.S. Supreme Court works on a schedule akin to your child’s long obsolete school schedule, which was based on an agrarian economy. Kids needed to work the fields during the summer months, so there was no school. (Schools have figured out how much time they spend in the early fall, bringing children back up to where they left off in May, which explains why so many families have Augustus Interruptus when it comes to vacations.) Not so justices, probably ever, and certainly not now! (I’m working on getting information about the origins of the summer vacation; if I get good information, I’ll report it.)

The 2014-15 term begins on October 6, the first Monday in October. (For film buffs,

I was consolidating pieces I’ve read and noted for further referencing. Plenty got tossed, and some material will pop up on Wednesday (and future Wednesdays). I did find some writing about the Supreme Court, though, which made me think it’s time for a bit of a wrapping up.

I don’t have the constitutional chops for a term in review. I looked for some on line, and all I found was this invite for the Supreme Court Round-Up in Tulsa, OK on July 24. Alas, I won’t be able to make it, but the price is right—$15.00—and you get two hours of CLE and refreshments.

Adam Liptak covers the Court for the Times now. He’s a Yale Law grad who practiced

The Supreme Court issued three opinions yesterday. Here’s SCOTUSblog’s Tuesday Round-Up, with a brief summary of each case, along with links to commentary.

The big news related to Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1146. The case involves the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s authority to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases. If I understand the decision correctly—a somewhat dubious proposition, and the major theme to this post—the EPA designed a regulatory scheme that amounted to a “less than allowed” amount of regulation, as adherence to the authority it was given would have created an unadministrable program. “No, no,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, the law neither permits nor compels such an outcome.

The day job calls,