Quick Analysis of Today’s DOMA and Proposition 8 Rulings

Pro-marriage equality advocates gather at the U.S. Supreme Court. Photo by author.

This morning, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional.  In a 5-4 opinion, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, states that “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”  In the other marriage equality case, also a 5-4 decision (Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority), the Court ruled that the petitioners in the California Proposition 8 case did not have standing to appeal, which means that the trial court’s decision invalidating Proposition 8 stands and California can resume recognition of same-sex marriages.

Q: Who does the DOMA decision affect directly?

A: Everyone in the country who is in a legal same-sex marriage. 

The main purpose of DOMA was to prevent the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that several states have deemed legal.  This delegitimatization prevented same-sex spouses from enjoying over 1,000 benefits under federal law that opposite-sex couples get automatically upon legal marriage.  With DOMA’s demise, legally married same-sex couples will soon have rights to Social Security survivorship, tax status, inheritance, and many other benefits listed in the U.S. Tax Code and other federal laws.

Q: Does the DOMA ruling mean that states where same-sex marriages are illegal must recognize gay unions?

A: No. 

The Supreme Court did not give state same-sex marriage statutes “full faith and credit,” which means that the 38 states that do not already recognize same-sex unions don’t have to start doing so.  The effect of the ruling is that the Court leaves the question of marriage to the individual states.  This is in contrast to the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, where the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional nationwide.

Q: Who does the Proposition 8 decision affect directly?

A: Only residents of California.

The Court did not rule on the merits of the case, meaning that it did not discuss whether same-sex marriages should or should not be recognized on the state level.  In plain English, the Court dismissed the case on a technicality.

Q: What is “standing?”

A: Standing means the ability to bring a suit before a court. 

Proposition 8 (page 49 in this 2008 voter’s guide)was a referendum passed in 2008 that forced California to stop performing gay marriages.  The law was challenged and repealed at the trial level, but on appeal state officials declined to defend the statute.  An interest group called ProtectMarriage.com, which led the initiative to get Proposition 8 on the ballot, filed the appeal in place of the State of California.  The Court ruled that this group did not suffer “personal and tangible harm” and thus could not bring an appeal, and therefore returned the case to the trial court, whose ruling striking down Proposition 8 would immediately become effective.

Cases referenced:

U.S. v. Windsor, 12-307 (June 26, 2013)

Perry v. Hollingsworth, 12-144 (June 26, 2013)

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

This blog is an advertisement for the Law Office of Philip R. Yabut, PLLC, and the information in this post is not to be construed as legal advice, nor does reading it form an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post confidential information in the comments section.

Philip R. Yabut, Esq. || 1100 N. Glebe Road, Suite 1010, Arlington, VA 22201 || (571) 393-1236 || pyabut01@gmail.com

An explanation of the “public safety” exception to Miranda v. Arizona

On April 19, 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was captured after a five-day manhunt following the Boston Marathon bombings.  Almost immediately, a dispute over how to treat the only surviving supect of the bombings played out over mass and social media outlets.  Should he be considered an “enemy combatant?”  Should he be tried in a civil court or a military tribunal?  Should he be read his Miranda rights? 

First, without looking at what should and should not be done, these are the facts as we know them:

1) Tsarnaev is an American citizen.

2) Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, who was killed during the manhunt, are suspected of murdering four people and injuring over 100 more over the course of five days in and around Boston.

3) The brothers are Muslims of Chechen descent who have been in the United States for more than ten years.

4) There is no indication as of yet that they have any connections to any international terrorist organization, and no group has claimed responsibility for their actions.

Upon capture, it became big news when major news outlets erroneously reported that the FBI read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights.  Soon thereafter, the FBI announced that he had not been read his rights, and that in fact they would not do so until after an elite interrogation team questioned him under the “public safety” exception to Miranda as stated by the Supreme Court in the 1984 decision New York v. Quarles (467 U.S. 649).

So what is the “public safety” exception to Miranda?  The Court wrote in Quarles:

“We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. We decline to place officers such as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the Miranda warnings and render whatever probative evidence they uncover inadmissible, or for them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the volatile situation confronting them.” (467 U. S. 658-59.)

The exception allows the police to question the suspect only on what may be considered an immediate threat to public safety or destruction of evidence.  In Quarles, the arresting officer only questioned the suspect as to the location of the gun used in the crime, and the Court allowed Quarles’ statement to be admitted at his trial.  467 U.S. 659-60. 

In Tsarnaev’s case, it would appear that the FBI would only be able to question him on where other bombs could be hidden, or whether he has any associates planning other attacks in the future.  However, when it comes to terrorism, the line as to what is an “imminent threat” of terrorism has been blurred by both the Bush and Obama administrations in the name of national security, so it could be up to the courts to determine if Miranda should be limited further.

It is also important to note that the Fifth Amendment does not discriminate by citizenship.  Even if Tsarnaev were not a U.S. citizen, he would enjoy the right against self-incrimination under the law, and thus would legally be entitled to receive Miranda warnings and request an attorney to be present when he is questioned further.

This blog is an advertisement for the Law Office of Philip R. Yabut, PLLC, and the information in this post is not to be construed as legal advice, nor does reading it form an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post confidential information in the comments section.

Philip R. Yabut, Esq. || 1100 N. Glebe Road, Suite 1010, Arlington, VA 22201 || (571) 393-1236 || pyabut01@gmail.com