Blog

Mississippi HB 1523 would allow county clerks to recuse from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on religious objections. The Campaign for Southern Equality sought to reopen and expand the injunction granted by the Southern District of Mississippi in 2015, after Obergefell was decided, to enjoin enforcement of HB 1523. (See Religion Clause and Buzzfeed for more background). Yesterday, the court granted limited relief, and allowed the case to be reopened to address the changes to the “landscape of Mississippi’s marriage licensing laws” by HB 1523.

The court found that HB 1523 “may in fact amend Mississippi’s marriage licensing regime in such a way as to conflict with Obergefell.” Therefore, the “significant change” warrants reopening the case to reconsider the Permanent Injunction. One of the key questions for the court was whether the 81 circuit clerks, who were not parties to the original action, are bound by the permanent injunction.

The court concluded that they are not bound, citing The Process of Marriage Equality, authored by Howard Wasserman and me.

This is exactly right. An injunction does not bind non-parties. It only serves as precedent, which can be the basis for a subsequent contempt action. Clerks in other counties that do not issue the licenses to same-sex couples will almost certainly be held in contempt–and be subject to paying fees–but the 2015 injunction is not enough, standing by itself, to cause that effect. This is such a fundamental misconception of civil procedure, and I am so, so glad the court got this neutral principle of procedure correct.

Today I was in studio on Houston Matters on Houston Public Radio to talk about Whole Women’s health. Here is the audio:

After Justice Scalia’s passing, I assumed that I would be able to at last retire the long-running series of battles between Scalia and Posner, which finished at Round XXVI back in September of 2014. Once again, Judge Posner managed to prove me wrong.

In his contribution at Slate’s Breakfast Table, Posner took this posthumous swipe at Nino, albeit this time criticizing as “absurd” those who praised him–including Harvard Dean Martha Minow and Justice Kagan:

On a different subject, I worry that law professors are too respectful of the Supreme Court, in part perhaps because they don’t want to spoil the chances of their students to obtain Supreme Court clerkships. I think the Supreme Court is at a nadir. The justices are far too uniform in background, and I don’t think there are any real stars among them; the last real star, Robert Jackson, died more than 60 years ago. I regard the posthumous encomia for Scalia as absurd. Especially those of Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Justice Elena Kagan.

I’m speechless.

Adrian Vermeule, inspired by The History of England from the Accession of James the Second, stated it better than I ever could:

“From the malice of [Posner] the grave was no hiding place, and the house of mourning no sanctuary” — TB Macaulay. https://t.co/xRptjl7Etj

— Adrian Vermeule (@avermeule) June 25, 2016

I titled this post “The Final Round,” but knowing Posner, this is far from over. And now, Scalia won’t be able to reply.

In case you didn’t hear me talk about U.S. v. Texas enough today, I also did an interview on Houston Matters, a show that focuses on local matters. Every June, this involves Texas cases at the Court. You can listen here.

Today I was a guest on “To the Point” with Marielena Hincapie and Greg Stohr, discussing U.S. v. Texas. You can listen here: