Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:19:12.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Search of Judicial Activism in the Same-Sex Marriage Cases: Sorting the Evidence from Courts, Legislatures, Initiatives and Amendments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2010

Scott Barclay
Scott Barclay
Affiliation:
University at Albany: SUNY. E-mail: s.barclay@albany.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2006, President Bush publicly stated that, in relation to the same-sex marriage issue, “activist judges” were thwarting the preferred policy of the elected representatives and the expression of popular will embodied in popular initiatives and constitutional amendments. Notwithstanding the philosophical discussion of the constitutionally assigned role of courts in the political system and the idea of judicial independence, President Bush's statement raises an interesting empirical question: In the case of same-sex marriage, have state and federal courts really acted in direct opposition to the expressed policy preferences of current or recent legislative majorities or overturned popular initiatives and constitutional amendments? Using evidence from state and federal legislative and judicial action around same-sex marriage primarily from the fifteen years preceding President Bush's 2006 statement, I argue that, with some rare exceptions, judges can not easily be identified as “activist” on the issue of same-sex marriage even if we assess their actions according to President Bush's criteria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 111 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Andersen, Ellen Ann. 2004. Out of the Closets & Into the Courts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, Scott, and Fisher, Shauna F.. 2006. Cause Lawyers and Social Movements, Failure and Success: Comparing the Two Waves of Same Sex Marriage Litigation. In Cause Lawyers and Social Movements, ed. Sarat, Austin and Scheingold, Stuart. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Barclay, Scott, and Marshall, Anna-Maria. 2005. Supporting a Cause, Developing a Movement, and Consolidating a Practice: Cause Lawyers and Sexual Orientation Litigation in Vermont. In The Worlds Cause Lawyers Make, ed. Sarat, Austin and Scheingold, Stuart. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. 1986. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W., and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2003. Predicting Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections: Context and the Politics of Institutional Design. Political Research Quarterly 56(3): 337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, Paul, and Hall, Melinda Gann. 1995. Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States. Political Research Quarterly 48(1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, Bradley C. 1982. A Framework for the Analysis of Judicial Activism. In Supreme Court Activism and Restraint, ed. Halpern, Stephen C. and Lamb, Charles M.. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Casper, Jonathan D. 1976. The Supreme Court and National Policy Making. American Political Science Review 70(1): 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. Decision making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker. Journal of Public Law 6(2): 279–95.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. 1996. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. 2002. Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Funston, Richard. 1975. The Supreme Court and Critical Elections. American Political Science Review 69(3): 795–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Micheal, Hettinger, Virginia, and Peppers, Todd. 2001. Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas. Political Research Quarterly 54 (3): 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1993. The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary. Studies in American Political Development 7(1): 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 2006. “From the Countermajoritarian Difficulty to Juristocracy and the Political Construction of Judicial Power.” 65 Maryland Law Review 1.Google Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform. American Political Science Review 95(2): 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halligan, Caitlin. 2004. Opinion of the New York State Solicitor General on the Legality of Same Sex Marriages in New York State. Issued by the New York State Attorney General's Office, March 3, 2004.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald. 1977. The Courts and Social Policy. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2004. The Most Activist Supreme Court in History: The Road to Modern Judicial Conservatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Laura. 2002. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Susan E. 1991. Justice, Democracy, Litigation, and Political Participation. Social Science Quarterly 72(3): 464–77.Google Scholar
Lovell, George. 2003. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lovell, George, and Lemieux, Scott E.. 2006. “Assessing Juristocracy: Are Judges Rulers or Agents?” 65 Maryland Law Review 100.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwarzenegger, Arnold. 2005. “Veto Message re AB 849.” Press release of the California Governor's Office on September 29, 2005. http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/1379/ Last accessed on September 26, 2009.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. 1997. Explaining Federal Bureaucratic Compliance with Supreme Court Opinions. Political Research Quarterly 50(3): 567–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zemans, Frances Zahn. 1983. Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System. American Political Science Review 77(3): 690–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Case Citations

Adams v. Howerton 486 F. Supp. 1119 (1980)Google Scholar
Andersen v King County 2004 WL 1738447 (2004)Google Scholar
Andersen v King County 158 Wash.2d 1 (2006)Google Scholar
Baehr v Lewin 852 P.2d 44 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baehr v. Miike 1996 WL 694235 (1996)Google Scholar
Baehr v. Miike 92 Hawai‘i 634 (1999)Google Scholar
Baker v. State 170 Vt. 194 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brause v Dugan 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super.) (1996)Google Scholar
Brause v. State 21 P.3d 357 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle v State of Washington 2004 WL 1985215 (2004)Google Scholar
Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (2005)Google Scholar
Citizens for Equal Protection v Bruning 455 F.3d 859 (2006)Google Scholar
Cote-Whitacre v Public Health 446 Mass. 350 (2006)Google Scholar
Dean v. District of Columbia 653 A.2d 307 (1995)Google Scholar
Deane v Conaway 2006 WL 148145 (2006)Google Scholar
Deane v Conaway 401 Md. 219 (2007)Google Scholar
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health 440 Mass. 309 (2003)Google Scholar
Hernandez v Robles 794 N.Y.S.2d 579 (2005a)Google Scholar
Hernandez v Robles 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (2005b)Google Scholar
Hernandez v Robles 7 N.Y.3d 338 (2006)Google Scholar
In re Kandu 315 B.R. 123 (2004)Google Scholar
In re Marriage Cases JCCP No. 4365 (2005)Google Scholar
In re Marriage Cases 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 (2006)Google Scholar
In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008)Google Scholar
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health 2008 WL 4530885 (2008)Google Scholar
Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for State of Massachusetts 317 F.Supp.2d 77 (2004a)Google Scholar
Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for State of Massachusetts 373 F.3d 219 (2004b)Google Scholar
Li v. State 2004 WL 1258167 (2004)Google Scholar
Li v. State 338 Or. 376 (2005)Google Scholar
Lockyer v. City, and County of San Francisco 33 Cal.4th 1055 (2004)Google Scholar
Morrison v. Sadler 821 N.E.2d 15 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People v West 4 Misc.3d 605 (2004)Google Scholar
Standhardt v Superior Court 206 Ariz. 276 (2003)Google Scholar
Storrs v Holcomb (1996, Sup) 168 Misc 2d 898 (1996)Google Scholar
Storrs v. Holcomb 245 A.D.2d 943 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varnum v. Brien 2009 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 31 (2009)Google Scholar

Statutes Mentioned, Federal:

Federal Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) 28 USCS § 1738CGoogle Scholar

Statutes Mentioned, States:

Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-101 CGoogle Scholar
Connecticut Civil Unions Law 2005 Conn. Acts 10 § 1-15Google Scholar
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 572-1Google Scholar
Indiana Code Ann. § 31-11-1-1Google Scholar
Iowa Code § 595.2 (1)Google Scholar
Maryland Family Law Code Ann. § 2-201Google Scholar
Revised Code Washington § 26.04.010 (1)Google Scholar