fbpx

Running up the legal tab in the same-sex marriage cases

Add another $45,000 to the tab that legislative leaders ran up in attorneys fees and costs chasing their same-sex marriage opposition in the courts,  even in the face of rulings rejecting marriage bans as unconstitutional.

In addition to the fees and costs incurred by the leaders’ own attorneys, taxpayers will now also be on the hook for those additional dollars — a fee award which court fillings this week show the leaders agreed to as as a result of their involvement as intervenors in those cases.

The award goes to the Amendment One challengers as the prevailing parties to a successful civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Then Speaker Thom Tillis and Senate President Phil Berger jumped into the cases in October 2014 after the federal appeals court in Richmond laid down the law in the circuit, holding in the Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey, that state bans on same sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Just hours after that Bostic ruling in July 2014, Attorney General Roy Cooper indicated that his office would no longer defend North Carolina’s ban, saying that it was time “to stop making arguments we will lose.”

And on October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to review Bostic, making the appeals court ruling the governing law in North Carolina.

Despite those clear signals from the appeals and Supreme Courts, the self-professed fiscal conservatives took up the torch on October 9, when they asked U.S. District Judge William Osteen to allow them to intervene in the two challenges pending before him.

Osteen declared Amendment One unconstitutional pursuant to the Bostic decision on October 14, 2014, but then granted the leaders’ intervention request for purposes of appeal.

They then pursued that appeal until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late June, 2015 in Obegefell v. Hodges that marriage bans across the country were unconstitutional.

The cost for that fruitless appeal was $56, 476, but the challengers have agreed to accept $44,501.36.

They are also separately seeking nearly $255,000 from the state for fees and costs incurred as a result of its defense of Amendment One.

###

Load More Related Articles
Load More By Sharon McCloskey
Load More In News

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

WASHINGTON — The Department of Education announced on Tuesday it is extending the pandemic-era pause on… [...]

Alcoa's continued discharge of toxics into Badin Lake, a popular fishing and swimming destination, linked to… [...]

Local governments in Ohio and Illinois are using American Rescue Plan Act money to relieve residents… [...]

A new study finds authorities rely on police and jails to address low-level charges that don’t… [...]

Maybe the change was an inevitable byproduct of our current charged and contentious era. Maybe it… [...]

The post Swift action appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

The North Carolina Supreme Court – or at least a slim majority of its members –… [...]

So now what? What are we to make of the results of the 2022 midterms now… [...]

REPUBLISHING TERMS

You may republish this article online or in print under our Creative Commons license. You may not edit or shorten the text, you must attribute the article to The Pulse and you must include the author’s name in your republication.

If you have any questions, please email [email protected]

License

Creative Commons License AttributionCreative Commons Attribution
Running up the legal tab in the same-sex marriage cases