Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics
Headline: Washington, D.C., voters seeking a referendum on a new same-sex marriage law are denied a stay, allowing the law to take effect while local courts and Congress' review proceed.
Holding: The Court refused to pause the D.C. law expanding marriage to same-sex couples, denying a stay because local review, Congress' 30-day review, and a pending ballot initiative make Supreme Court review unlikely.
- The same-sex marriage law takes effect as scheduled unless Congress disapproves.
- Local courts and a pending ballot initiative, not this Court, will decide the referendum dispute.
- D.C. voters lose an immediate pause but can pursue a ballot initiative to challenge the law.
Summary
Background
Washington, D.C. voters asked to block a new local law that expands marriage to include same-sex couples by forcing a public referendum before it takes effect. The D.C. Council passed the law and adopted a provision saying some measures need not face referenda because of the D.C. Human Rights Act. The D.C. Board of Elections and local courts refused the voters' referendum request, so the voters asked this Court to pause the law from taking effect on March 3, 2010.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the Court should temporarily stop the law so voters could force a referendum. Chief Justice Roberts declined to grant that pause. He explained the Court typically defers to D.C. courts on purely local matters. He also noted that Congress had a 30-day review period and did not disapprove the law, and that the Council's exemption had itself been subject to congressional review. Finally, because a separate ballot initiative remains pending, Supreme Court review now seemed unlikely.
Real world impact
As a result, the same-sex marriage law was allowed to take effect as scheduled, meaning D.C. couples can rely on the new rule unless Congress or later court action changes it. The voters who wanted an immediate referendum lost the temporary delay they sought, but they can pursue the separate ballot initiative now pending in the D.C. Court of Appeals. That court will address many of the same legal questions on the merits, and the dispute could return to this Court later if needed.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?