In a ruling announced this afternoon, the Honorable James Ware, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, denied the Motion to Vacate Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's previous ruling in Kristin M, Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. that was filed by the Defendant-Intervenors in the case regarding California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
In the introduction to his ruling (download .pdf of full ruling here, via AFER.org) released this afternoon, Ware writes,
Plaintiffs in this case are same-sex couples who claim that a California constitutional provision that redefined marriage in California solely to encompass a union between one man and one woman violated their rights under the federal Constitution. Defendant-Intervenors were allowed to intervene to advance an argument that the California constitutional provision did not violate the federal Constitution. After a court trial, Judge Walker entered judgment for Plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the state constitution against them. Defendant-Intervenors appealed that Judgment to the Ninth Circuit. After he had retired, and while the appeal was pending, a newspaper article reported that Judge Walker shared that he is gay and that he was in a same-sex relationship at the time when he was presiding over this case. Defendant-Intervenors brought this Motion before the District Court to vacate the Judgment on the ground that Judge Walker was disqualified from presiding over the case because his same-sex relationship was, or reasonably appeared to be, a nonpecuniary interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the case.
After considering the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing law, as discussed below, the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted grounds. The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.
Although Schwarzenegger is the named defendant in the case, as the state's governor at the time, he has made it clear he does not support the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriages: Scwharzenegger called Judge Walker's initial ruling in the case a "milestone on America's road to equality and freedom for all people" and in August 2010 filed along with Attorney General Jerry Brown, to lift the stay on same-sex marriages in the state while the case is tied up in appeals. The remaining issue in the case? Whether anyone has standing to appeal the ruling further.
Comments