Of the several parties in the
case, only Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (“Coalition”) objects toPlaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for
Natasha N. Jackson
v. Neil Abercrombie
to be heard by the same panel.
The Coalition does not disputethat having the cases proceed together will promote efficiency for the Court andparties, or that it will reduce the risk of inconsistent results. Instead, the Coalitionobjects that the relief might slow consideration of this case because
islikely to be stayed, given the Supreme Court’s decision to review two cases thatraise several issues closely related to those presented here.
See Hollingsworth v.Perry
, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 9416 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2012) (12-144) (challengingCalifornia’s Proposition 8, which bars same-sex couples from marriage);
United States v. Windsor
, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 9413 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2012) (12-307)(challenging Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), whichprohibits the federal government from recognizing the valid marriages of same-sexcouples). The Coalition’s arguments rely on a fundamental mischaracterization of the scope of this case. Moreover, as a prevailing party, the Coalition’s desire torace to a decision is puzzling, and the Coalition does not offer any reason to forego
Two parties in
Jackson v. Abercrombie
objected to Plaintiffs-Appellants’motion on non-substantive grounds, based on their view that this motion wasunnecessary in light of the Court’s procedures for identifying and coordinatingcases involving similar legal issues. Dkt. 7 at 9.
Case: 12-17668 12/28/2012 ID: 8455270 DktEntry: 10 Page: 2 of 9