Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases, clears way for same-sex marriage in multiple states

In a decision that has surprised many, the Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear any of the seven petitions for review of same-sex marriage cases that were pending before it. According to the New York Times, the decision was issued without explanation, and has the practical impact of clearing the way for same-sex marriages in those states where federal appellate courts have overturned same-sex marriage bans. These include Virginia (Fourth Circuit), Indiana (Seventh Circuit), Wisconsin (Seventh Circuit), Oklahoma (Tenth Circuit) and Utah (Tenth Circuit). 

This brings the total number of states allowing same-sex marriage to 24. This refusal effectively eliminates the stays the Court had previously granted which had blocked marriages from taking place in these states. As of early this afternoon, SCOTUS Blog reports that both the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have put their rulings into immediate effect for Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah, but no action has yet been taken in the Seventh Circuit.

These federal circuits also have jurisdiction over six other states with same-sex marriage bans, namely Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming. While the Supreme Court's action does not automatically eliminate these bans, the appellate court decisions finding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional are binding precedent in the states within the jurisdiction of those courts, so it is widely assumed that they will be struck down in short order. 

The Supreme Court's action is viewed as a surprise, as most thought that the high court would be taking action on this issue in this session. SCOTUS Blog offers a full analysis of why this was such a surprising move, including the relatively unprecedented demand from parties on both sides of the issue requesting the Court to weigh in, and the Court's previous action granting stays that prevented same-sex marriages from taking place in the states where appellate courts had struck down bans.

The Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits all currently have cases or decisions pending on this same issue. The action of the Supreme Court provides no binding precedent for these courts.

Defendants now permitted to challenge breathalyzer test results, says Ohio Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled last week that defendants may challenge the reliability of the specific results obtained from a breathalyzer used to analyze blood-alcohol content in DUI cases. In a unanimous opinion penned by Justice O'Donnell, the Court held that a defendant is not precluded "from challenging the accuracy, competence, admissibility, relevance, authenticity, or credibility of specific test results or whether the specific machine used to test the accused operated properly at the time of the test."

The case before the Court is based out of Cincinnati. The defendant, Daniel Ilg, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and subjected to a breathalyzer test using the Intoxilyzer 8000. Ilg moved to suppress the breathalyzer results and made a discovery request for evidence about the machine that had been used to test him, including information about his specific test and the machine's data from three years before his arrest and three months after. Ilg also subpoenaed the Ohio Department of Health for information and records related to this machine. When this was not produced, the trial court ordered that his breathalyzer results should be suppressed, finding that Ilg had a right to challenge the reliability of the test and could not do so without this information. The First District affirmed this order and the city of Cincinnati appealed.

In affirming the lower courts, the Ohio Supreme Court distinguished this case from the long-held precedent set in State v. Vega, which held that defendants in DUI cases cannot challenge the reliability of breath testing devices. The Court found that while Vega prohibited a defendant from challenging the general reliability of the test procedure, it did not preclude the defendant from challenging "the accuracy of his specific test results." The Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, holding that the defendant "is entitled to discovery of relevant evidence to support his claim that the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine used to test him failed to operate properly."

For more information about this case, see this link from Court News Ohio and this article from the Columbus Dispatch.

Amended laws change responsibility for protection order costs and interpreter's fees

The Ohio Poverty Law Journal reports that changes to Ohio's protection order laws took effect on September 17, 2014. These laws generally offer protection to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or juvenile violence by allowing them to obtain court orders that typically require the perpetrators to have no contact with them, among other possible restrictions. The amendments to the laws, which came about pursuant to Ohio H.B. 309, involve changes related to the payment of fees and costs associated with all types of protection orders, including domestic violence civil protection orders, civil stalking protection orders, civil sexually oriented offense protection orders, juvenile protection orders, criminal protection orders and temporary protection orders.

Specifically, the changes to the law prohibit charging the petitioner on the protection order any fees or costs related to enforcing, modifying, dismissing or withdrawing the order. Also newly prohibited are charges related to witness subpoenas. Prior to passage of H.B. 309 petitioners were not charged with costs or fees for filing protection orders, but could be charged with the other costs that are now prohibited by the amended laws. Courts are now also permitted to charge the respondent or defendant in these matters with the costs and fees associated with the case, whereas under the old law they were not permitted to charge any of the parties with certain costs.

Additionally, H.B. 309 provides that when a party is classified as indigent by the courts the party cannot be charged with costs for interpreter fees. This is a change that applies to parties in all court cases, and is not limited to the protection order cases described above. Click here for analysis of the final bill.