Here's Matt Friedman's report:
In a split decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.
"This matter cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record," wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, who added that "We reach no conclusion on the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the constitutionality of the Civil Union Act."
Of course we know that this longer process will not deter those seeking equality.
Here is Garden State Equality's news release and legal brief on the case from May.
Update from Rosi:
Essentially, the Lewis v. Harris plaintiffs here were seeking a court remedy, going back to Court because the remedy ordered in the 2006 case - ordering the Legislature to deliver equal protection to same-sex couples by whatever means it devised - did not work. And that's because the Legislature chose civil unions. And civil unions do not deliver equal protection to same-sex couples.
There's plenty of evidence of that, but the evidence submitted to the Court - which included testimony to the Civil Unions Review Commission and sworn certifications - was not subject to cross-examination, as would happen in a formal court proceeding.
The court's position is that it cannot rule without the development of a full trial-like record, and therefore plaintiffs have to start all over, filing a new lawsuit. The vote was 3-3, but a tie in the Supreme Court produces no action.
The "minority" opinion agrees there is not sufficient evidence to rule on the merits, but also recognizes "plaintiffs detail a host of workplace, public accomodation, family law, economic, and various other 'rights and privileges" that they say are not afforded to them. And that if plaintiffs' allegations are true, "the constitutional inequities should be addressed without any unnecessary delay." So the dissenters argued the next step should have been the development of that record, presumably before the Supreme Court, or at a minimum, oral argument to help the Court determine what the best and most expeditious procedural route to developing that record would be.
If Justice John Wallace was still sitting on the New Jersey State Supreme Court, we might have had a different outcome today.
The three justices who voted in the dissent all have tenure; the three who declined to act (including Chief Justice Stuart Rabner) all have to be reappointed by Christie.
Here is the Supreme Court decision, filed today.
Update by Rosi: Statement from Garden State Equality Chair Steven Goldstein is just below the fold. |