7th Cir. Explains What Same-Sex Marriage and Voter ID Have in Common | Blogs | Wisconsin Appellate Law

What do cases involving challenges to same-sex-marriage and voter ID laws have in common?

The answer, according to a per curiam opinion issued today by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Frank v. Walker, Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2014), is that both involve “laws enacted through the democratic process” that should “remain in force pending final decision by the Supreme Court.”

It’s a lesson worth remembering in appellate practice. This issue arose as a result of the plaintiffs’ “Emergency Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc,” filed in the challenge to Wisconsin’s voter ID law, after the Seventh Circuit stayed an injunction that previously had barred the state’s enforcement of the law. The court issued that stay on the same day that it heard oral argument, a lesson in itself on the availability of interim relief that we wrote about here. The court denied the request for rehearing en banc by a 5-5 vote last week and issued two opinions—a per curiam opinion concerning the reasons for denying the request and a dissent written by Judge Williams—this afternoon.

The per curiam opinion explained that it was entirely proper to stay the district court’s injunction. Wisconsin’s voter ID law was not only likely valid (given its similarity to Indiana’s voter ID law, which survived a challenge at the Supreme Court), but “[a] second important consideration is the public interest in using laws enacted through the democratic process, until the laws’ validity has been finally determined.” The panel went on to explain that “[t]his is the view the Supreme Court has taken in the same-sex-marriage cases now before it. Even after federal courts held some states’ laws invalid, the Court issued stays so that the laws remain in effect pending final resolution. . . . Our panel concluded that Wisconsin’s photo ID law should be handled in the same way.”

Judge Williams wrote for the five judges who voted to rehear the case en banc.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.