Supreme Court Clears Way for Release of Footage From Landmark Trial That Legalized Same-Sex Marriage in California
Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'
Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know
Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California
Analysis: Will the Supreme Court Hear the Proposition 8 Case?
Request for En Banc Rehearing of Prop 8 Case Denied by 9th Circuit
Prop 8 Filing Tomorrow Could Be 9th Circuit's Decision on Rehearing Case En Banc
Watch Video Replay of Prop 8 Play With George Clooney, Brad Pitt
Analysis of Prop 8 En Banc Filing: Proponents Looking For Stronger Dissent to Take to SCOTUS
Sponsored
Player sponsored by
window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_11926613": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11926613",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11926613",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11911275,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/RS5337_KQEDprop8castro_01-160x112.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 112
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/RS5337_KQEDprop8castro_01-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2023/04/RS5337_KQEDprop8castro_01.jpg",
"width": 720,
"height": 503
}
},
"publishDate": 1663977120,
"modified": 1664304361,
"caption": "Larry Pascua from San Francisco waves a flag in front of the iconic Castro Theater to celebrate the Supreme Court rules on Prop. 8 and DOMA.",
"description": "A reveler waves a Pride flag in front of the Castro Theatre in San Francisco.",
"title": "RS5337_KQEDprop8castro_01",
"credit": "Courtesy of Darlene Bouchard",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "A man with a white t-shirt is seen from behind waving a Pride flag next to another Pride flag being waved with the Castro Theatre in the background.",
"fetchFailed": false,
"isLoading": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false
},
"authorsReducer": {
"jbrooks": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "80",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "80",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jon Brooks",
"firstName": "Jon",
"lastName": "Brooks",
"slug": "jbrooks",
"email": "jbrooks@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"science"
],
"title": "Digital Editor",
"bio": "Jon Brooks is a former Digital Editor for KQED Science. He is the former editor of KQED’s daily news blog, News Fix. In 2014, he won a California Journalism Award for his coverage of ride services like Uber and Lyft and the taxi industry. A veteran blogger, he previously worked for Yahoo! in various news writing and editing roles. Jon is also a playwright whose work has been produced in San Francisco, New York, Italy, and around the U.S. He has written about film for his own blog and studied film at Boston University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "jbrooksfoy",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"Contributor",
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jon Brooks | KQED",
"description": "Digital Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/98887f7ed1c876ed414d4c915e969584?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jbrooks"
},
"lisapickoffwhite-2": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "199",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "199",
"found": true
},
"name": "Lisa Pickoff-White",
"firstName": "Lisa",
"lastName": "Pickoff-White",
"slug": "lisapickoffwhite-2",
"email": "lpickoffwhite@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Data Journalist, Senior Producer",
"bio": "Lisa Pickoff-White is KQED's data reporter. Lisa specializes in simplifying complex topics and bringing them to life through compelling visuals, including photography and data visualizations. She previously has worked at the Center for Investigative Reporting and other national outlets. Her work has been honored with awards from the Online News Association, Investigative Reporters and Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists and SXSW Interactive. \u003cstrong> \u003c/strong>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "pickoffwhite",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": []
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Lisa Pickoff-White | KQED",
"description": "Data Journalist, Senior Producer",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5513c5f3967df792aa65bee2501e84d6?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lisapickoffwhite-2"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
},
"rmarcus": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "1430",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "1430",
"found": true
},
"name": "Rachael Bale",
"firstName": "Rachael",
"lastName": "Bale",
"slug": "rmarcus",
"email": "rmarcus@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": "\u003cspan style=\"color: #333333;\">Rachael Bale is researcher and reporter for The Center for Investigative Reporting and occasional contributor to KQED News and The California Report. A California native, she has a bachelor's degree in political science from Reed College and a master's degree in journalism from American University.\u003c/span>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Rachael Bale | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3e6c242547f6a9d1bc4570e11aea344e?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/rmarcus"
}
},
"breakingNewsReducer": {},
"pagesReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_11911275": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11911275",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11911275",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1665496035000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news"
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1665496035,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court Clears Way for Release of Footage From Landmark Trial That Legalized Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"title": "Supreme Court Clears Way for Release of Footage From Landmark Trial That Legalized Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"headTitle": "KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>KQED scored a historic legal victory Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an effort to block the release of videotapes from the 2010 federal trial in San Francisco that ultimately led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tuesday's decision is the culmination of a 12-year legal effort that began in 2009 when a media coalition led by KQED sought to have the trial broadcast. In 2017 KQED asked the Northern District of California to unseal the trial tapes, arguing that the recordings were a vital part of the public record in a historic legal case. While the court did not agree to immediately release the tapes, it ordered them to be unsealed on Aug. 12, 2020 — 10 years after the case closed. In declining to hear an appeal of lower court rulings, the Supreme Court effectively cleared the way for the tapes to be released.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“After today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, the public will finally be able to watch the testimony that Judge Vaughn Walker considered in deciding that same-sex couples have the right to marry,\" said Thomas R. Burke, KQED's attorney. \"There’s no doubt that the video will become a valuable instrument to educate the public about this historic moment.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Great news! Love wins again and now, so does transparency,\" said Jeff Zarillo, one of the original plaintiffs in the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Holly Kernan, KQED's chief content officer, agreed. \"If our systems work behind closed doors, with no press or public access, we have no idea how decisions are made, nor what arguments are leading to these decisions,\" she said. \"KQED wants more sunlight on our legal system and we will fight on behalf of the public to get that access.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[aside postID=\"news_11919970,news_11922040\" label=\"Related Posts\"]Supporters of Proposition 8 – a California ballot proposition passed by voters in 2008 that would have banned same-sex marriage in the state – previously appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to have the tapes sealed permanently.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That court dismissed that request, saying the petitioners lacked legal standing for their appeal. The court also batted away the contention that unsealing the tapes would lead to harm or harassment of anyone directly involved in the trial and confirmed the lower court’s decision to unseal the tapes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a last-ditch effort to keep the tapes sealed, Proposition 8 proponents asked the Supreme Court to take up the case. In their \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1304/219553/20220328101818830_Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry%20Petition.pdf\">March 28, 2022 petition\u003c/a>, attorneys for Proposition 8 said the court's intervention was needed to \"prevent a grievous injury\" to the ballot measure's backers and to \"the integrity of the federal judiciary.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This entire issue began over 12 years ago, when Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the federal court judge who presided over the 2010 Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, announced that he wanted the entire proceeding to be broadcast live via closed-circuit television with viewing in federal courthouses in San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle and Portland, Oregon.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That would have made Perry v. Schwarzenegger the first federal trial to be broadcast and recorded, with videotapes to be made available for later viewing on YouTube.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the Proposition 8 defense team objected as the bench trial was starting and the Supreme Court intervened, stopping the live broadcast before it began. The court said Walker failed to go through the appropriate process for getting approval for such a broadcast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Over objections from Proposition 8 attorneys, Walker said he would videotape the trial anyway for personal use in his chambers to help him write the decision, which ultimately struck down Proposition 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Responding to the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the case and allow the lower court rulings to stand, Walker, who is now retired from the bench, said the justices did the right thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"With everything else going on in the world, not weighing in on this issue was an easy decision,\" said Walker. He added that the format of the Prop. 8 trial, with its expert witnesses providing testimony about the history, economics, sociology and psychology of gender roles and same-sex marriage could be a blueprint for judges in other controversial issues, including abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It was testimony by people who understood the whole panoply which gender plays in our society and in personal relationships,\" Walker said. \"Trials reveal things that simply cannot come out when you're scratching through old dusty books and records of the long past. And I think there are going to be many enactments affecting the abortion rights in the various states in the wake of the Dobbs decision.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In seeking to block release of the videotapes, attorneys for the ballot measure's proponents argued to the Supreme Court that Walker \"solemnly promised\" in court that the tapes would not be made public, and that doing so now would undermine public faith in the courts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1304/226576/20220531111532780_Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opp.pdf\">response brief (PDF)\u003c/a>, attorneys for KQED argued that there was never a promise to keep the trial tapes sealed beyond 10 years and that Proposition 8 supporters failed to demonstrate any concrete injury that would come from releasing them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kris Perry, one of the original plaintiffs along with her partner Sandy Stier, said release of the tapes was long overdue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Since the 2010 ruling striking down Proposition 8, we have fought to have the video record of our historic trial shared with the public,\" Perry said. \"There is no more important time to expose the discriminatory rhetoric of proponents and the courage of the experts, attorneys and plaintiffs in standing up against hate. Even though it's been 12 years since our ruling, we know the fight for marriage equality and many other basic civil rights is still essential and this video shows the evidence for why.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 2009 lawsuit filed by supporters of same-sex marriage against Proposition 8 was considered risky by some progressive legal groups, which worried that a setback in federal court could take decades to undo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The trial gained national attention, in part because the legal team seeking to have Proposition 8 struck down was led by conservative Theodore Olson and liberal David Boies, who were on \u003cem>opposite\u003c/em> sides of the infamous Bush v. Gore case following the disputed 2000 presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The three-week trial in 2010 considered a wide range of issues, including the history of marriage, the political power of the LGBTQ+ community, the social and psychological harm of so-called \"conversion therapy\" and how the plaintiffs and their children were personally affected by being denied the right to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1984506746130471324&q=Perry+vs.+Schwarzenegger&hl=en&as_sdt=2006\">Judge Walker's decision in August 2010\u003c/a> struck down \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Proposition\u003c/span> 8 on the basis that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, saying California had no rational interest in denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The decision was later upheld in a 2-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2013, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case, ruling narrowly that \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Proposition \u003c/span>8 supporters lacked legal standing to appeal the lower court decisions, which opened the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California after a five-year hiatus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Hollingsworth v. Perry et al was one of dozens of cases \"denied certiorari\" or denied review by the court today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When asked before Tuesday's decision when the trial tapes would be made available, a spokesperson for the courts said \"we will work with the judge in the underlying case to make them available promptly. They'll be posted on a publicly available site.\" No additional details were given.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "11911275 https://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=11911275",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2022/10/11/supreme-court-ruling-clears-way-for-release-of-footage-from-landmark-trial-that-legalized-same-sex-marriage-in-california/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1285,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1665516446,
"excerpt": "Tuesday's decision is the culmination of a 12-year legal effort that began in 2009 when a media coalition led by KQED sought to have the Proposition 8 trial broadcast.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Tuesday's decision is the culmination of a 12-year legal effort that began in 2009 when a media coalition led by KQED sought to have the Proposition 8 trial broadcast.",
"title": "Supreme Court Clears Way for Release of Footage From Landmark Trial That Legalized Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Clears Way for Release of Footage From Landmark Trial That Legalized Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"datePublished": "2022-10-11T06:47:15-07:00",
"dateModified": "2022-10-11T12:27:26-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "supreme-court-ruling-clears-way-for-release-of-footage-from-landmark-trial-that-legalized-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"status": "publish",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"path": "/news/11911275/supreme-court-ruling-clears-way-for-release-of-footage-from-landmark-trial-that-legalized-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>KQED scored a historic legal victory Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an effort to block the release of videotapes from the 2010 federal trial in San Francisco that ultimately led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Tuesday's decision is the culmination of a 12-year legal effort that began in 2009 when a media coalition led by KQED sought to have the trial broadcast. In 2017 KQED asked the Northern District of California to unseal the trial tapes, arguing that the recordings were a vital part of the public record in a historic legal case. While the court did not agree to immediately release the tapes, it ordered them to be unsealed on Aug. 12, 2020 — 10 years after the case closed. In declining to hear an appeal of lower court rulings, the Supreme Court effectively cleared the way for the tapes to be released.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“After today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, the public will finally be able to watch the testimony that Judge Vaughn Walker considered in deciding that same-sex couples have the right to marry,\" said Thomas R. Burke, KQED's attorney. \"There’s no doubt that the video will become a valuable instrument to educate the public about this historic moment.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Great news! Love wins again and now, so does transparency,\" said Jeff Zarillo, one of the original plaintiffs in the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Holly Kernan, KQED's chief content officer, agreed. \"If our systems work behind closed doors, with no press or public access, we have no idea how decisions are made, nor what arguments are leading to these decisions,\" she said. \"KQED wants more sunlight on our legal system and we will fight on behalf of the public to get that access.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "aside",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"postid": "news_11919970,news_11922040",
"label": "Related Posts "
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>Supporters of Proposition 8 – a California ballot proposition passed by voters in 2008 that would have banned same-sex marriage in the state – previously appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to have the tapes sealed permanently.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That court dismissed that request, saying the petitioners lacked legal standing for their appeal. The court also batted away the contention that unsealing the tapes would lead to harm or harassment of anyone directly involved in the trial and confirmed the lower court’s decision to unseal the tapes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a last-ditch effort to keep the tapes sealed, Proposition 8 proponents asked the Supreme Court to take up the case. In their \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1304/219553/20220328101818830_Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry%20Petition.pdf\">March 28, 2022 petition\u003c/a>, attorneys for Proposition 8 said the court's intervention was needed to \"prevent a grievous injury\" to the ballot measure's backers and to \"the integrity of the federal judiciary.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>This entire issue began over 12 years ago, when Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the federal court judge who presided over the 2010 Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, announced that he wanted the entire proceeding to be broadcast live via closed-circuit television with viewing in federal courthouses in San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle and Portland, Oregon.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That would have made Perry v. Schwarzenegger the first federal trial to be broadcast and recorded, with videotapes to be made available for later viewing on YouTube.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the Proposition 8 defense team objected as the bench trial was starting and the Supreme Court intervened, stopping the live broadcast before it began. The court said Walker failed to go through the appropriate process for getting approval for such a broadcast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Over objections from Proposition 8 attorneys, Walker said he would videotape the trial anyway for personal use in his chambers to help him write the decision, which ultimately struck down Proposition 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Responding to the Supreme Court's refusal to take up the case and allow the lower court rulings to stand, Walker, who is now retired from the bench, said the justices did the right thing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"With everything else going on in the world, not weighing in on this issue was an easy decision,\" said Walker. He added that the format of the Prop. 8 trial, with its expert witnesses providing testimony about the history, economics, sociology and psychology of gender roles and same-sex marriage could be a blueprint for judges in other controversial issues, including abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"It was testimony by people who understood the whole panoply which gender plays in our society and in personal relationships,\" Walker said. \"Trials reveal things that simply cannot come out when you're scratching through old dusty books and records of the long past. And I think there are going to be many enactments affecting the abortion rights in the various states in the wake of the Dobbs decision.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In seeking to block release of the videotapes, attorneys for the ballot measure's proponents argued to the Supreme Court that Walker \"solemnly promised\" in court that the tapes would not be made public, and that doing so now would undermine public faith in the courts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a \u003ca href=\"https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1304/226576/20220531111532780_Hollingsworth%20v.%20Perry%20--%20Brief%20in%20Opp.pdf\">response brief (PDF)\u003c/a>, attorneys for KQED argued that there was never a promise to keep the trial tapes sealed beyond 10 years and that Proposition 8 supporters failed to demonstrate any concrete injury that would come from releasing them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kris Perry, one of the original plaintiffs along with her partner Sandy Stier, said release of the tapes was long overdue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Since the 2010 ruling striking down Proposition 8, we have fought to have the video record of our historic trial shared with the public,\" Perry said. \"There is no more important time to expose the discriminatory rhetoric of proponents and the courage of the experts, attorneys and plaintiffs in standing up against hate. Even though it's been 12 years since our ruling, we know the fight for marriage equality and many other basic civil rights is still essential and this video shows the evidence for why.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 2009 lawsuit filed by supporters of same-sex marriage against Proposition 8 was considered risky by some progressive legal groups, which worried that a setback in federal court could take decades to undo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The trial gained national attention, in part because the legal team seeking to have Proposition 8 struck down was led by conservative Theodore Olson and liberal David Boies, who were on \u003cem>opposite\u003c/em> sides of the infamous Bush v. Gore case following the disputed 2000 presidential election.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The three-week trial in 2010 considered a wide range of issues, including the history of marriage, the political power of the LGBTQ+ community, the social and psychological harm of so-called \"conversion therapy\" and how the plaintiffs and their children were personally affected by being denied the right to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1984506746130471324&q=Perry+vs.+Schwarzenegger&hl=en&as_sdt=2006\">Judge Walker's decision in August 2010\u003c/a> struck down \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Proposition\u003c/span> 8 on the basis that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, saying California had no rational interest in denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The decision was later upheld in a 2-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2013, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case, ruling narrowly that \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Proposition \u003c/span>8 supporters lacked legal standing to appeal the lower court decisions, which opened the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California after a five-year hiatus.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Hollingsworth v. Perry et al was one of dozens of cases \"denied certiorari\" or denied review by the court today.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When asked before Tuesday's decision when the trial tapes would be made available, a spokesperson for the courts said \"we will work with the judge in the underlying case to make them available promptly. They'll be posted on a publicly available site.\" No additional details were given.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11911275/supreme-court-ruling-clears-way-for-release-of-footage-from-landmark-trial-that-legalized-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_27626",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1244"
],
"featImg": "news_11926613",
"label": "news"
},
"news_99462": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99462",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99462",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371085233000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371085233,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99554\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-99554\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\" alt=\"Vaughn-Walker-Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, who wrote the 2010 decision invalidating Proposition 8\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues before a gathering of 25 or so criminal defense attorneys Monday night, how could I resist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the meeting, Walker outlined the history of homosexuality and the law. Born in 1944, Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive gay rights is something that “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.” For emphasis, he added that the shift has been “utterly unimaginable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recalling that day in 2009 when he first noticed a complaint in his “in box” titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was, he said, “my oh-shit moment.” He realized the importance of the case challenging Prop. 8, but said he never thought it would attract the media attention it has. The Prop. 8 case is, he said, “the gift that keeps on giving.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Walker, the most fascinating moment in the March 26 oral arguments at the Supreme Court was this exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the - outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision ... that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->It was, said Walker, “a remarkable exchange” highlighting the extent to which equal treatment for gays and lesbians has become embedded in our culture.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And why did Walker choose to hold a trial with witnesses, rather than just take briefs and make a ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive LGBT rights is something, “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.”\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Trials have a cleansing effect,” he said. “It’s not always a Perry Mason moment, but there’s nothing like putting someone on the witness stand” and making them answer questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the meeting, Walker and I strolled over to the Hyatt Regency, where we had a wide-ranging discussion about the Prop. 8 trial and the Supreme Court's pending decision. That was off the record, though I can say he drinks a Hendrick's gin martini up with two olives. And also: the judge says that unlike those of us in the media who are up early on SCOTUS decision days to catch first word of the ruling, he's a lot less obsessed with the case's final outcome.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But at his talk with attorneys, Walker paraphrased former civil rights leader John Lewis, saying, “The leaders are scrambling to keep up with the people. There goes America. The laws some day will catch up.”\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99462 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99462",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/12/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 559,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1371087707,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling. So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues",
"title": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable' | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'",
"datePublished": "2013-06-12T18:00:33-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-12T18:41:47-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/11/vaughn-walker/",
"path": "/news/99462/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99554\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 200px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-99554\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/06/Vaughn-Walker-Photo3.jpg\" alt=\"Vaughn-Walker-Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"300\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, who wrote the 2010 decision invalidating Proposition 8\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Ever since he struck down Proposition 8 in 2010, former federal judge Vaughn Walker has maintained a certain distance from the case. That’s probably wise, given that the Supreme Court has yet to make a final determination on his ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So when Walker called and invited me to hear him speak about LGBT legal issues before a gathering of 25 or so criminal defense attorneys Monday night, how could I resist?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the meeting, Walker outlined the history of homosexuality and the law. Born in 1944, Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive gay rights is something that “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.” For emphasis, he added that the shift has been “utterly unimaginable.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Recalling that day in 2009 when he first noticed a complaint in his “in box” titled Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was, he said, “my oh-shit moment.” He realized the importance of the case challenging Prop. 8, but said he never thought it would attract the media attention it has. The Prop. 8 case is, he said, “the gift that keeps on giving.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Walker, the most fascinating moment in the March 26 oral arguments at the Supreme Court was this exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Prop. 8 attorney Charles Cooper.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the - outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision ... that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->It was, said Walker, “a remarkable exchange” highlighting the extent to which equal treatment for gays and lesbians has become embedded in our culture.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And why did Walker choose to hold a trial with witnesses, rather than just take briefs and make a ruling?\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003cstrong>Walker said the breadth of change in how the courts perceive LGBT rights is something, “I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams.”\u003c/strong>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Trials have a cleansing effect,” he said. “It’s not always a Perry Mason moment, but there’s nothing like putting someone on the witness stand” and making them answer questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the meeting, Walker and I strolled over to the Hyatt Regency, where we had a wide-ranging discussion about the Prop. 8 trial and the Supreme Court's pending decision. That was off the record, though I can say he drinks a Hendrick's gin martini up with two olives. And also: the judge says that unlike those of us in the media who are up early on SCOTUS decision days to catch first word of the ruling, he's a lot less obsessed with the case's final outcome.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But at his talk with attorneys, Walker paraphrased former civil rights leader John Lewis, saying, “The leaders are scrambling to keep up with the people. There goes America. The laws some day will catch up.”\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99462/vaughn-walker-calls-getting-prop-8-case-my-oh-s-moment",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1196"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_91703": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_91703",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "91703",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363878014000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363878014,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, gay-marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law, garnering a win for same-sex couples.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether or not Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage, and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">multiple possible outcomes\u003c/a> of the Prop. 8 case -- none of which will likely settle the issue for good. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide the Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the Ninth Circuit court's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That decision could also leave the issue open to more appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the President chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. If the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Proposition 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "91703 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=91703",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 956,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 26
},
"modified": 1398733239,
"excerpt": "In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized \" in the state. The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" align=\"left\" style=\"padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nBut the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\r\n\r\nGay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted "yes" on Proposition 22, a measure that amended state law to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized " in the state. The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBut the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed Proposition 8. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\r\n\r\nGay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.",
"title": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know",
"datePublished": "2013-03-21T08:00:14-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:39-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/91703/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted \"yes\" on \u003ca href=\"http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/22text.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 22\u003c/a>, a measure that amended state law to read, \"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.\" The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_91707\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/21/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know/supreme-court-decides-whether-of-not-to-review-challenge-of-californias-prop-8-4/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-91707\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-91707\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS1372_samesexmarriage20121130-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, New Jersey, holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court November 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed \u003ca href=\"http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Proposition 8\u003c/a>. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Taking the cause up the legal chain, gay-marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. \u003cem>Perry v. Schwarzenegger\u003c/em> (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/01/15/who-is-judge-vaughn-walker/\">Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Walker \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\">overturned\u003c/a> Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law, garnering a win for same-sex couples.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,\" Walker wrote in the \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/news/prop8ruling080410.pdf\">ruling\u003c/a>. \"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/05/prop-8-supporters-file-appeal/\">appeal\u003c/a> got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/09/13/is-abel-willing/\">declined to defend\u003c/a> the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/10/imperial-county-files-to-intervene-in-proposition-8-appeals/\">willing to defend\u003c/a> the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2011/11/17/california-ruling-on-standing-in-prop-8-case-due-at-10-a-m/\">ruled\u003c/a> that Prop. 8's proponents could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">upheld\u003c/a> the district court's ruling, \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">calling\u003c/a> Prop. 8 unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, the battle has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/12/07/u-s-supreme-court-announcement-on-proposition-8-californias-gay-marriage-ban/\">reached\u003c/a> the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> oral arguments March 26. President Obama has \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/obama-argues-against-californias-proposition-8-gay-marriage-ban/\">urged\u003c/a> the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">Oral arguments\u003c/a> touched on a number of issues: whether or not Prop. 8 proponents have standing to bring the case, how to define marriage, if procreation is connected to marriage, and what the Constitution says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow gays and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">multiple possible outcomes\u003c/a> of the Prop. 8 case -- none of which will likely settle the issue for good. If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices could also decide the Prop. 8 proponents lacked standing to bring the case, which would vacate the Ninth Circuit court's decision and uphold Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. That decision could also leave the issue open to more appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>WHAT ABOUT DOMA?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">heard\u003c/a> the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. Clinton has since said he \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/08/173808091/bill-clinton-defense-of-marriage-act-that-i-signed-is-unconstitutional\">believes\u003c/a> the law is unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Two hours of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> touched largely on what constitutes equal protection under the Constitution, states' rights, and why the President chose not to uphold the law.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the court upholds DOMA, not much will likely change. If the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>GAY MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While the cases were being decided, same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Proposition 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/02/28/california-poll-finds-widespread-support-for-same-sex-marriage/\">Field Poll\u003c/a> released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/91703/prop-8-what-you-need-to-know",
"authors": [
"1430"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_4863",
"news_335",
"news_548",
"news_893",
"news_3672",
"news_2626",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_1172",
"news_1244"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_55537": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_55537",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "55537",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1363838414000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1363838414,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"title": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/94206/A-History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\" target=\"_blank\">timeline\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "55537 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=55537",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/20/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 69,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 4
},
"modified": 1540258676,
"excerpt": "When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\nAnd while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/94206/A-History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\" target=\"_blank\">timeline\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\r\n\r\n\u003ciframe frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border-width:0\" width=\"620\" height=\"480\" src=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/embed/94206/6323748030/\">\u003c/iframe>",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\nAnd while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this timeline.\r\n\r\n",
"title": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Timeline: The Long Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"datePublished": "2013-03-20T21:00:14-07:00",
"dateModified": "2018-10-22T18:37:56-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/55537/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>When the Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, it will mark one more step in a long legal battle to determine the ultimate disposition of the same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And while the legal battle over Proposition 8 has been long and winding enough, the battle over same-sex marriage in California actually goes back even further, as you'll see in this \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/94206/A-History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-California/\" target=\"_blank\">timeline\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/55537/timeline-the-long-battle-over-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_67415": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_67415",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "67415",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1339023773000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1339023773,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Will the Supreme Court Hear the Proposition 8 Case? ",
"title": "Analysis: Will the Supreme Court Hear the Proposition 8 Case? ",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant a rehearing of the Proposition 8 case. In February, a three-judge panel of the court voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court's ruling that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, and Proposition 8 proponents, on the losing side of that decision, had wanted a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges, called an \"en banc\" panel, to rehear the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After this latest setback, Prop 8 supporters, who have now lost at two levels of the federal judiciary, said they would \"absolutely\" ask the Supreme Court to review the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on the case in February, UC Davis law professor Vik Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer that he thought the opinion was written as narrowly as possible in order to ward off the Supreme Court from taking -- and perhaps overturning -- the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yesterday, after the Ninth Circuit announced it would not take up the case again, KQED's Rachael Myrow checked in with Professor Amar to get his reading of the tea leaves in terms of whether the Supreme Court will take up the matter of Proposition 8. Edited transcript of that interview:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RACHAEL MYROW\u003c/strong>:Recap the narrow ruling that the Ninth Circuit issued in February.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: They tried to decide the case on very California-specific grounds, so the Supreme Court wouldn't feel it had to intervene and take review. If the Ninth Circuit had held that not only had Prop 8 violated the federal constitution, but that every state's ban on same-sex marriage in the western U.S. also violated the federal constitution, than I think the U.S. Supreme Court would have had no choice but to take review.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's still a good chance the Supreme Court will step in, but at least by making the ruling so California-specific they offer the Supreme Court an excuse not to step in if it wants to wait.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RACHAEL MYROW\u003c/strong>: A lot of people are talking as if it's a given that the Supreme Court will take up the case. But might it leave it alone?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: It might. But the California-specific reasoning that Judge Reinhardt employed is not convincing to a lot of people. So there's a good chance the Supreme Court will still want to take the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But complicating things more now is the decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the Defense of Marriage case last week. The DOMA case raises narrower questions than the Prop 8 case does. So they may want to look at the DOMA issues and wait a year or more before they take on the more momentous question of whether states have to recognize same-sex marriage, if they want to take up the question of gay marriage a little more incrementally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because in the First Circuit's DOMA ruling, the question wasn't whether states have to recognize same sex marriage, it was if a state recognizes same sex marriage, should the federal government have to abide by that and allow that couple to be considered married for federal purposes as well? The court may want to look at that narrower issue before it confronts the bigger issue presented by Prop 8 and other bans on same-sex marriage like it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sometimes the Supreme Court will sit on a request for review for awhile until it decides another case that may be relevant. So if the Supreme Court decides it wants to take the DOMA case first, it could grant review in that case and let the Prop 8 case sit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One more thing that's important – we've been focusing on the merits of the Prop 8 case, whether the California constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment. But there's still that looming question of whether the defenders of Prop 8 had standing to defend the law in the first place. The Supreme Court could dispose of the Prop 8 case if it wanted to on standing grounds without ever ruling on the merits. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RACHAEL MYROW\u003c/strong>: How likely is that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: I think it's not unlikely. In 1996 the Supreme Court unanimously wrote an opinion that slapped the Ninth Circuit down for recognizing initiative-sponsored standing in Arizona. This case is arguably different than the Arizona case, but there's a lot of skepticism on the part of U.S. Supreme Court justices about whether unelected individuals should easily be able to step into the shoes of voters and defend enactments in federal court, especially when the people who passed Prop 8, the voters, may not have really known who the sponsors of Prop 8 were who were going to be their legal representatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think the standing question is a really complex one and I don't really think the Ninth circuit and the California Supreme Court did it justice in deciding that the sponsors really did have standing.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "67415 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=67415",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/06/analysis-will-the-supreme-court-hear-the-proposition-8-case/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 842,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 18
},
"modified": 1339024207,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant a rehearing of the Proposition 8 case. In February, a three-judge panel of the court voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court's ruling that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, and Proposition 8 proponents, on the losing side of that decision, had wanted a larger",
"title": "Analysis: Will the Supreme Court Hear the Proposition 8 Case? | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Will the Supreme Court Hear the Proposition 8 Case? ",
"datePublished": "2012-06-06T16:02:53-07:00",
"dateModified": "2012-06-06T16:10:07-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "analysis-will-the-supreme-court-hear-the-proposition-8-case",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/67415/analysis-will-the-supreme-court-hear-the-proposition-8-case",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant a rehearing of the Proposition 8 case. In February, a three-judge panel of the court voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court's ruling that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, and Proposition 8 proponents, on the losing side of that decision, had wanted a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges, called an \"en banc\" panel, to rehear the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After this latest setback, Prop 8 supporters, who have now lost at two levels of the federal judiciary, said they would \"absolutely\" ask the Supreme Court to review the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>When the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on the case in February, UC Davis law professor Vik Amar told KQED's Scott Shafer that he thought the opinion was written as narrowly as possible in order to ward off the Supreme Court from taking -- and perhaps overturning -- the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yesterday, after the Ninth Circuit announced it would not take up the case again, KQED's Rachael Myrow checked in with Professor Amar to get his reading of the tea leaves in terms of whether the Supreme Court will take up the matter of Proposition 8. Edited transcript of that interview:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RACHAEL MYROW\u003c/strong>:Recap the narrow ruling that the Ninth Circuit issued in February.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: They tried to decide the case on very California-specific grounds, so the Supreme Court wouldn't feel it had to intervene and take review. If the Ninth Circuit had held that not only had Prop 8 violated the federal constitution, but that every state's ban on same-sex marriage in the western U.S. also violated the federal constitution, than I think the U.S. Supreme Court would have had no choice but to take review.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There's still a good chance the Supreme Court will step in, but at least by making the ruling so California-specific they offer the Supreme Court an excuse not to step in if it wants to wait.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RACHAEL MYROW\u003c/strong>: A lot of people are talking as if it's a given that the Supreme Court will take up the case. But might it leave it alone?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: It might. But the California-specific reasoning that Judge Reinhardt employed is not convincing to a lot of people. So there's a good chance the Supreme Court will still want to take the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But complicating things more now is the decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the Defense of Marriage case last week. The DOMA case raises narrower questions than the Prop 8 case does. So they may want to look at the DOMA issues and wait a year or more before they take on the more momentous question of whether states have to recognize same-sex marriage, if they want to take up the question of gay marriage a little more incrementally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Because in the First Circuit's DOMA ruling, the question wasn't whether states have to recognize same sex marriage, it was if a state recognizes same sex marriage, should the federal government have to abide by that and allow that couple to be considered married for federal purposes as well? The court may want to look at that narrower issue before it confronts the bigger issue presented by Prop 8 and other bans on same-sex marriage like it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sometimes the Supreme Court will sit on a request for review for awhile until it decides another case that may be relevant. So if the Supreme Court decides it wants to take the DOMA case first, it could grant review in that case and let the Prop 8 case sit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One more thing that's important – we've been focusing on the merits of the Prop 8 case, whether the California constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment. But there's still that looming question of whether the defenders of Prop 8 had standing to defend the law in the first place. The Supreme Court could dispose of the Prop 8 case if it wanted to on standing grounds without ever ruling on the merits. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>RACHAEL MYROW\u003c/strong>: How likely is that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>VIK AMAR\u003c/strong>: I think it's not unlikely. In 1996 the Supreme Court unanimously wrote an opinion that slapped the Ninth Circuit down for recognizing initiative-sponsored standing in Arizona. This case is arguably different than the Arizona case, but there's a lot of skepticism on the part of U.S. Supreme Court justices about whether unelected individuals should easily be able to step into the shoes of voters and defend enactments in federal court, especially when the people who passed Prop 8, the voters, may not have really known who the sponsors of Prop 8 were who were going to be their legal representatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think the standing question is a really complex one and I don't really think the Ninth circuit and the California Supreme Court did it justice in deciding that the sponsors really did have standing.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/67415/analysis-will-the-supreme-court-hear-the-proposition-8-case",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_67195": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_67195",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "67195",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1338923297000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1338923297,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Request for En Banc Rehearing of Prop 8 Case Denied by 9th Circuit",
"title": "Request for En Banc Rehearing of Prop 8 Case Denied by 9th Circuit",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55522\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 220px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55522\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM1\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"220\" height=\"166\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec, 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The petition by Prop 8 proponents for a rehearing of the case by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been denied.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/06/05/1016696ebofinal.pdf\">\u003cstrong>Read the ruling here\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Prop 8 proponents now have 90 days to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, during which time same-sex marriage in California will remain prohibited, as it will if and when the Supreme Court takes the case. Backers of the ban said today they \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/06/05/96369/prop_8_backers_say_theyll_take_case_to_supreme_court?category=bay+area\">will indeed ask the high court to review the decision\u003c/a>. From AP:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Proposition 8 backers ``absolutely'' would take the case to the high court now that it has run its course at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He did not know if the Proposition 8 defense team would take the entire 90 days they have to petition the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>If the high court declines to hear the case, or if it upholds the Ninth Circuit's ruling, then same-sex marriage will be legal in California. If the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses the Ninth Circuit decision, then it will remain illegal. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Theodore Olson, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs challenging Prop 8, speculated on a conference call today that he expects the Supreme Court would announce its decision on whether it will hear the case in October. If the court takes up the matter, Olson said, he thinks arguments would occur some time in the spring of 2013, with a decision by June, 2013. \u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/05/prop-8-en-banc-ruling/#react\">\u003cstrong>Reaction from around the web and live chat\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As for today's ruling, proponents of Prop 8 asked the 9th Circuit for the en banc review in February, after a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">decision by a three-judge panel\u003c/a> upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down the law as unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the 2-1 decision validating Walker's ruling, the court wrote: \"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.\" \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 10:30 a.m.\u003c/strong> KQED's Scott Shafer today talked to Vik Amar of the UC Davis School of Law, who said there were actually two requests before the court:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>A request to the original three-judge panel for a rehearing. That request was denied 2 to 1, with Judge Smith, who wrote the original dissent to the decision, in the minority.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Having lost that vote, a request for an en banc hearing was then put to the full court, and at least three judges voted to rehear the case. The opinion, written by Judge O’Scannlain, was publicly joined by Judges Byee and Bea. Other judges may have also voted for a rehearing but declined to make their names public.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 10:40 a.m.\u003c/strong> In February, Hastings law professor Rory Little told Scott Shafer he thought Prop 8 supporters were pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent to the original decision, \"which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful 'this is wrong.' It was more like 'we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.'\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Little continued: \"Here's the best result for proponents -- they don't get enough votes for en banc, but they get a forceful dissent from the denial of en banc from O`Scannlain and Bybee and whoever they can pick up, which they can then use as their petition to the Supreme Court. Bybee and O`Scannlain have had a number of cases granted in the last five years from their dissents from en banc. Those guys are in the business of writing cert petitions, basically. And they're powerful writers.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Well, Judge O'Scannlain did indeed write a dissent...\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same-sex marriage as a policy matter. Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of \u003ca href=\"http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039\">Romer v. Evans\u003c/a>, we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia. Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And the retort from Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins, who made up the majority in February's 2-1 decision:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>We are puzzled by our dissenting colleagues’ unusual reliance on the President’s views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion. We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage. That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The reference here to the \"the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8\" and to the lack of resolution to \"the fundamental question [of] whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage\" may also be noteworthy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the Ninth Circuit panel's decision against Prop 8 in February, UC Davis' Vik Amar told Scott Shafer that \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-ruling-legal-analysis-decision-was-made-with-eye-toward-supreme-court/\">Reinhardt and Hawkins may have tailored their decision in the narrowest way possible\u003c/a>, making it applicable only to California, so as to give the ruling the best possible chance of \u003cem>not\u003c/em> being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Amar also said: \"There was no way the Ninth circuit was going to rule for the plaintiffs and not create a significant risk that the Supreme Court would step in. The question wasn't whether the Supreme Court had its eye on this case, the question was how do you minimize that, and I think they tried to do that by keeping the reasoning specific to California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Professor Rory Little of Hastings agreed with that today, in an interview with KQED's Rachael Myrow. \"I think it's a little naieve to believe that the court will see this as limited to just California. Certainly the Ninth Circuit's ruling only relates to California, but its analysis is much broader than just California. And of course the Ninth Circuit governs the entire western United states, so its analysis would be precedent for the entire [region]. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think the Supreme Court is likely to think this issue is ripe, this is ready for a national decision. One way or the other, there are enough states that have gone in different directions, there's enough controversy about it, [so] let's try to put the issue to rest one way or the other.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"react\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\nReaction and coverage from around the web below...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe style=\"border: 1px solid #000000\" src=\"http://embed.scribblelive.com/Embed/v5.aspx?Id=48944&ThemeId=5349\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"400\" height=\"300\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/96044529/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-Rehearing-of-Prop-8-Case-Decision\">Read the full decision here\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca title=\"View Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing of Prop. 8 Case - Decision on Scribd\" href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/96044529/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-Rehearing-of-Prop-8-Case-Decision\">Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing of Prop. 8 Case - Decision\u003c/a>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/96044529/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-2f8llfbytss95ikdjxx2\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "67195 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=67195",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/05/prop-8-en-banc-ruling/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1340,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1338927609,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The petition by Prop 8 proponents for a rehearing of the case by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been denied. Read the ruling here Prop 8 proponents now have 90 days to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, during which time same-sex marriage in California will remain",
"title": "Request for En Banc Rehearing of Prop 8 Case Denied by 9th Circuit | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Request for En Banc Rehearing of Prop 8 Case Denied by 9th Circuit",
"datePublished": "2012-06-05T12:08:17-07:00",
"dateModified": "2012-06-05T13:20:09-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-en-banc-ruling",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/67195/prop-8-en-banc-ruling",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55522\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 220px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-55522\" title=\"Prop8plaintiffsSM1\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8plaintiffsSM11-300x225.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"220\" height=\"166\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Couples challenging Prop 8 pose before an Appeals Court hearing in Dec, 2010. (Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The petition by Prop 8 proponents for a rehearing of the case by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been denied.\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/06/05/1016696ebofinal.pdf\">\u003cstrong>Read the ruling here\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>Prop 8 proponents now have 90 days to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, during which time same-sex marriage in California will remain prohibited, as it will if and when the Supreme Court takes the case. Backers of the ban said today they \u003ca href=\"http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/06/05/96369/prop_8_backers_say_theyll_take_case_to_supreme_court?category=bay+area\">will indeed ask the high court to review the decision\u003c/a>. From AP:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Proposition 8 backers ``absolutely'' would take the case to the high court now that it has run its course at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He did not know if the Proposition 8 defense team would take the entire 90 days they have to petition the Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>If the high court declines to hear the case, or if it upholds the Ninth Circuit's ruling, then same-sex marriage will be legal in California. If the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses the Ninth Circuit decision, then it will remain illegal. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Theodore Olson, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs challenging Prop 8, speculated on a conference call today that he expects the Supreme Court would announce its decision on whether it will hear the case in October. If the court takes up the matter, Olson said, he thinks arguments would occur some time in the spring of 2013, with a decision by June, 2013. \u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/05/prop-8-en-banc-ruling/#react\">\u003cstrong>Reaction from around the web and live chat\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>As for today's ruling, proponents of Prop 8 asked the 9th Circuit for the en banc review in February, after a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/read-the-full-prop-8-ruling-and-key-passages/\">decision by a three-judge panel\u003c/a> upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down the law as unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the 2-1 decision validating Walker's ruling, the court wrote: \"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.\" \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 10:30 a.m.\u003c/strong> KQED's Scott Shafer today talked to Vik Amar of the UC Davis School of Law, who said there were actually two requests before the court:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>A request to the original three-judge panel for a rehearing. That request was denied 2 to 1, with Judge Smith, who wrote the original dissent to the decision, in the minority.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Having lost that vote, a request for an en banc hearing was then put to the full court, and at least three judges voted to rehear the case. The opinion, written by Judge O’Scannlain, was publicly joined by Judges Byee and Bea. Other judges may have also voted for a rehearing but declined to make their names public.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 10:40 a.m.\u003c/strong> In February, Hastings law professor Rory Little told Scott Shafer he thought Prop 8 supporters were pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent to the original decision, \"which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful 'this is wrong.' It was more like 'we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.'\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Little continued: \"Here's the best result for proponents -- they don't get enough votes for en banc, but they get a forceful dissent from the denial of en banc from O`Scannlain and Bybee and whoever they can pick up, which they can then use as their petition to the Supreme Court. Bybee and O`Scannlain have had a number of cases granted in the last five years from their dissents from en banc. Those guys are in the business of writing cert petitions, basically. And they're powerful writers.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Well, Judge O'Scannlain did indeed write a dissent...\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same-sex marriage as a policy matter. Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of \u003ca href=\"http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039\">Romer v. Evans\u003c/a>, we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia. Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>And the retort from Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins, who made up the majority in February's 2-1 decision:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>We are puzzled by our dissenting colleagues’ unusual reliance on the President’s views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion. We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage. That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>The reference here to the \"the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8\" and to the lack of resolution to \"the fundamental question [of] whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage\" may also be noteworthy.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the Ninth Circuit panel's decision against Prop 8 in February, UC Davis' Vik Amar told Scott Shafer that \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-ruling-legal-analysis-decision-was-made-with-eye-toward-supreme-court/\">Reinhardt and Hawkins may have tailored their decision in the narrowest way possible\u003c/a>, making it applicable only to California, so as to give the ruling the best possible chance of \u003cem>not\u003c/em> being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Amar also said: \"There was no way the Ninth circuit was going to rule for the plaintiffs and not create a significant risk that the Supreme Court would step in. The question wasn't whether the Supreme Court had its eye on this case, the question was how do you minimize that, and I think they tried to do that by keeping the reasoning specific to California.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Professor Rory Little of Hastings agreed with that today, in an interview with KQED's Rachael Myrow. \"I think it's a little naieve to believe that the court will see this as limited to just California. Certainly the Ninth Circuit's ruling only relates to California, but its analysis is much broader than just California. And of course the Ninth Circuit governs the entire western United states, so its analysis would be precedent for the entire [region]. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I think the Supreme Court is likely to think this issue is ripe, this is ready for a national decision. One way or the other, there are enough states that have gone in different directions, there's enough controversy about it, [so] let's try to put the issue to rest one way or the other.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca name=\"react\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\nReaction and coverage from around the web below...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe style=\"border: 1px solid #000000\" src=\"http://embed.scribblelive.com/Embed/v5.aspx?Id=48944&ThemeId=5349\" frameborder=\"0\" width=\"400\" height=\"300\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/96044529/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-Rehearing-of-Prop-8-Case-Decision\">Read the full decision here\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca title=\"View Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing of Prop. 8 Case - Decision on Scribd\" href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/96044529/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-Rehearing-of-Prop-8-Case-Decision\">Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing of Prop. 8 Case - Decision\u003c/a>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/96044529/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-2f8llfbytss95ikdjxx2\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/67195/prop-8-en-banc-ruling",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_4863",
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_67069": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_67069",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "67069",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1338831002000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1338831002,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Prop 8 Filing Tomorrow Could Be 9th Circuit's Decision on Rehearing Case En Banc",
"title": "Prop 8 Filing Tomorrow Could Be 9th Circuit's Decision on Rehearing Case En Banc",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Tuesday\u003c/em>: \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/05/prop-8-en-banc-ruling/\">\u003cstrong>The petition for an en banc rehearing has been denied\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Monday's post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just announced there will be a filing tomorrow in Perry v. Brown -- the Proposition 8 case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55632\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 285px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-55632\" title=\"prop8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"285\" height=\"213\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Kids at an anti-Prop 8 rally before a 9th Circuit hearing\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\"The filing will be available from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions,\" the court said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED's Scott Shafer said this is almost surely the decision on whether to rehear the case en banc. An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(\u003cstrong>Update 3:40 p.m.\u003c/strong> The court just sent out a notice that tomorrow's filing will indeed relate to the petition for rehearing en banc.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the 9th Circuit denies the request, Prop 8 supporters will almost certainly ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Proponents of Prop 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, asked the 9th Circuit for the en banc review in February, after a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">ruling by a three-judge panel upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down the law as unconstitutional\u003c/a>. (You can read the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8_EnBanc_Petition.pdf\">petition for the en banc panel here\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the 2-1 decision validating Walker's ruling, the court wrote: \"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by Democrats, voted to uphold Walker's ruling. Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by George W. Bush, dissented, asserting he wasn't convinced that there isn't a rational reason behind the ban. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As Scott Shafer reported at the time, \"one of the unknowns before the decision was whether the ruling would be broad, having national significance, or a narrower one that focused on Prop 8 in California. The decision was a narrow one, focusing on the proposition itself and the fact that California voters withdrew a right that had existed before Prop 8 was passed. The narrower ruling might make it a little less likely that the Supreme Court would take the case up, but that remains to be seen.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One legal analyst Shafer spoke to said the majority opinion was written with an eye toward dissuading the Supreme Court from hearing the case. \"By limiting the ruling and the reasoning to California and to Proposition 8,\" said UC Davis' Vik Amar, \"the Ninth Circuit judges at least give the Supreme Court an excuse not to step in.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the filing asking for the en banc panel, Shafer talked to Hastings law professor Rory Little about the procedure for and the legal strategy behind the request. Edited transcript\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Explain the en banc process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hastings Law Professor Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Normally the filing is styled as a petition for a rehearing or for a rehearing en banc. A rehearing by the original panel is not granted very often. It's possible that the original panel either determines that the petitioners have shown an obvious error, so we don't need to go en banc because we can correct it ourselves, or the panel will sometimes adjust their opinion trying to head off an en banc. They're not likely to consider granting a rehearing of their own, but you never know.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a case like this, almost certainly the panel will refer it to the en banc court. It would then go to a judge who's called the en banc coordinator. That coordinator will send it out and say here's a petition for rehearing en banc – and they get a ton of these. But this one will get special attention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A majority of active judges in the circuit needs to grant an en banc hearing. That's 13 votes, which is very hard to get in a circuit that has 7,000 – 8,000 appeals filed a year. They grant maybe 15-20 en bancs a year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>I think [Prop 8 proponents] are pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\"\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has said more than once that the 9th circuit ought to use its en banc power to clear up problematic decisions before the cases get to us. Then there are other judges who believe that if a case is an outlier, it's the Supreme Court's job to clear it up, not the en banc court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the kind of case that's always granted en banc: a case in which different panels of the 9th Circuit have reached opposite conclusions, meaning an intra-circuit conflict. This case is not going to have any intra-circuit conflicts associated with it. The other kind of case is an inter-circuit conflict, where the opinion of the panel conflicts with opinions from other circuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop 8 backers will assert that the panel's opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority. The other thing they'll say is this is a matter of exceptional importance, even though it's a California case, because it's a huge state and also because parts of the panel's opinion cannot be limited to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For example, the panel's rejecting the pro-Prop 8 rationale for the law as not having a rational basis is not restricted to California. That rational basis analysis, you would think, applies to virtually any gay rights case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are judges on the circuit who believe that if there's an inter-circuit conflict, that's not a job for the en banc court, it's a job for the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court, frankly, believes that 9th circuit panels generate more outlier decisions, and that a number of decisions every year are obviously incorrect. So they think these cases should be handled by the circuit en banc and not by the Supreme Court in a summary reversal. Every year a large number of summary reversals by the Supreme Court are from the 9th circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What’s the legal strategy in asking for an en banc panel? The en banc panel is chosen at random, so it's a bit of a crapshoot, isn't it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The strategy is that if they ask for en banc and it's denied, then in a sense they've exhausted all the remedies, and it makes it a slightly stronger case for Supreme Court review. Because the Supreme Court often says 'why didn't you ask for an en banc hearing?'\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Secondly, my guess is they believe they would do better if the right judges were put on the en banc panel. If they get \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1803&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">O`Scannlain\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2981&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Bybee\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3121&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Ikuta\u003c/a> my guess is they might get a stronger dissent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think they're pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the best result for proponents: They don't get enough votes for en banc, but they get a forceful dissent from the denial of en banc from O`Scannlain and Bybee and whoever they can pick up, which they can then use as their petition to the Supreme Court. Bybee and O`Scannlain have had a number of cases granted in the last five years from their dissents from en banc. Those guys are in the business of writing cert petitions, basically. And they're powerful writers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In terms of timing, do new briefs have to be filed with the en banc panel?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They do not have to have a second round of briefing. There are circuits that routinely do en banc without new briefs being filed. The 9th Circuit has tended to ask for a new en banc briefing, because sometimes the cases on which they grant en banc haven't been briefed very well, frankly. But that's hard to say in this case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There will be people really strategically maneuvering within the court on this one, on both sides. There is an argument that says, fine, let's re-hear it en banc, and now we'll get eight judges to say it's unconstitutional instead of just two.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "67069 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=67069",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/04/prop-8-filing-tomorrow/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1445,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 38
},
"modified": 1338916201,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Tuesday: The petition for an en banc rehearing has been denied. Monday's post The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just announced there will be a filing tomorrow in Perry v. Brown -- the Proposition 8 case. "The filing will be available from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions," the court said. KQED's",
"title": "Prop 8 Filing Tomorrow Could Be 9th Circuit's Decision on Rehearing Case En Banc | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Prop 8 Filing Tomorrow Could Be 9th Circuit's Decision on Rehearing Case En Banc",
"datePublished": "2012-06-04T10:30:02-07:00",
"dateModified": "2012-06-05T10:10:01-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-filing-tomorrow",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/67069/prop-8-filing-tomorrow",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Update Tuesday\u003c/em>: \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/06/05/prop-8-en-banc-ruling/\">\u003cstrong>The petition for an en banc rehearing has been denied\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Monday's post\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just announced there will be a filing tomorrow in Perry v. Brown -- the Proposition 8 case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_55632\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 285px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-55632\" title=\"prop8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/prop8.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"285\" height=\"213\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Kids at an anti-Prop 8 rally before a 9th Circuit hearing\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\"The filing will be available from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions,\" the court said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>KQED's Scott Shafer said this is almost surely the decision on whether to rehear the case en banc. An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(\u003cstrong>Update 3:40 p.m.\u003c/strong> The court just sent out a notice that tomorrow's filing will indeed relate to the petition for rehearing en banc.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>If the 9th Circuit denies the request, Prop 8 supporters will almost certainly ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Proponents of Prop 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, asked the 9th Circuit for the en banc review in February, after a \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/07/prop-8-appeals-court-decision/\">ruling by a three-judge panel upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down the law as unconstitutional\u003c/a>. (You can read the \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8_EnBanc_Petition.pdf\">petition for the en banc panel here\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the 2-1 decision validating Walker's ruling, the court wrote: \"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by Democrats, voted to uphold Walker's ruling. Judge N. Randy Smith, appointed by George W. Bush, dissented, asserting he wasn't convinced that there isn't a rational reason behind the ban. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>As Scott Shafer reported at the time, \"one of the unknowns before the decision was whether the ruling would be broad, having national significance, or a narrower one that focused on Prop 8 in California. The decision was a narrow one, focusing on the proposition itself and the fact that California voters withdrew a right that had existed before Prop 8 was passed. The narrower ruling might make it a little less likely that the Supreme Court would take the case up, but that remains to be seen.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One legal analyst Shafer spoke to said the majority opinion was written with an eye toward dissuading the Supreme Court from hearing the case. \"By limiting the ruling and the reasoning to California and to Proposition 8,\" said UC Davis' Vik Amar, \"the Ninth Circuit judges at least give the Supreme Court an excuse not to step in.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>After the filing asking for the en banc panel, Shafer talked to Hastings law professor Rory Little about the procedure for and the legal strategy behind the request. Edited transcript\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Explain the en banc process.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hastings Law Professor Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Normally the filing is styled as a petition for a rehearing or for a rehearing en banc. A rehearing by the original panel is not granted very often. It's possible that the original panel either determines that the petitioners have shown an obvious error, so we don't need to go en banc because we can correct it ourselves, or the panel will sometimes adjust their opinion trying to head off an en banc. They're not likely to consider granting a rehearing of their own, but you never know.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a case like this, almost certainly the panel will refer it to the en banc court. It would then go to a judge who's called the en banc coordinator. That coordinator will send it out and say here's a petition for rehearing en banc – and they get a ton of these. But this one will get special attention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A majority of active judges in the circuit needs to grant an en banc hearing. That's 13 votes, which is very hard to get in a circuit that has 7,000 – 8,000 appeals filed a year. They grant maybe 15-20 en bancs a year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv>I think [Prop 8 proponents] are pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\"\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has said more than once that the 9th circuit ought to use its en banc power to clear up problematic decisions before the cases get to us. Then there are other judges who believe that if a case is an outlier, it's the Supreme Court's job to clear it up, not the en banc court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the kind of case that's always granted en banc: a case in which different panels of the 9th Circuit have reached opposite conclusions, meaning an intra-circuit conflict. This case is not going to have any intra-circuit conflicts associated with it. The other kind of case is an inter-circuit conflict, where the opinion of the panel conflicts with opinions from other circuits.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop 8 backers will assert that the panel's opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority. The other thing they'll say is this is a matter of exceptional importance, even though it's a California case, because it's a huge state and also because parts of the panel's opinion cannot be limited to California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For example, the panel's rejecting the pro-Prop 8 rationale for the law as not having a rational basis is not restricted to California. That rational basis analysis, you would think, applies to virtually any gay rights case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are judges on the circuit who believe that if there's an inter-circuit conflict, that's not a job for the en banc court, it's a job for the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court, frankly, believes that 9th circuit panels generate more outlier decisions, and that a number of decisions every year are obviously incorrect. So they think these cases should be handled by the circuit en banc and not by the Supreme Court in a summary reversal. Every year a large number of summary reversals by the Supreme Court are from the 9th circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What’s the legal strategy in asking for an en banc panel? The en banc panel is chosen at random, so it's a bit of a crapshoot, isn't it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The strategy is that if they ask for en banc and it's denied, then in a sense they've exhausted all the remedies, and it makes it a slightly stronger case for Supreme Court review. Because the Supreme Court often says 'why didn't you ask for an en banc hearing?'\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Secondly, my guess is they believe they would do better if the right judges were put on the en banc panel. If they get \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1803&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">O`Scannlain\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2981&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Bybee\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3121&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Ikuta\u003c/a> my guess is they might get a stronger dissent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think they're pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the best result for proponents: They don't get enough votes for en banc, but they get a forceful dissent from the denial of en banc from O`Scannlain and Bybee and whoever they can pick up, which they can then use as their petition to the Supreme Court. Bybee and O`Scannlain have had a number of cases granted in the last five years from their dissents from en banc. Those guys are in the business of writing cert petitions, basically. And they're powerful writers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In terms of timing, do new briefs have to be filed with the en banc panel?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They do not have to have a second round of briefing. There are circuits that routinely do en banc without new briefs being filed. The 9th Circuit has tended to ask for a new en banc briefing, because sometimes the cases on which they grant en banc haven't been briefed very well, frankly. But that's hard to say in this case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There will be people really strategically maneuvering within the court on this one, on both sides. There is an argument that says, fine, let's re-hear it en banc, and now we'll get eight judges to say it's unconstitutional instead of just two.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp> \u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/67069/prop-8-filing-tomorrow",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_58332": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_58332",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "58332",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1330761597000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1330761597,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Watch Video Replay of Prop 8 Play With George Clooney, Brad Pitt ",
"title": "Watch Video Replay of Prop 8 Play With George Clooney, Brad Pitt ",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the court challenge to Proposition 8, live-streamed Saturday night a Los Angeles reading of \u003cem>8\u003c/em>, Dustin Lance Black's play about the trial in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. The play is made up largely of \u003ca href=\"http://www.afer.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/page/2/\">transcripts from the trial\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanEqualRights/featured?v=qlUG8F9uVgM\">Click here or on the image below to watch a video replay of the play\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanEqualRights/featured?v=qlUG8F9uVgM\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/03/8LA-live-2-300x155.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"prop 8 play live Pitt Clooney\" width=\"300\" height=\"155\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-58365\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanEqualRights/featured?v=qlUG8F9uVgM\">\u003cstrong>Watch video replay on YouTube\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The all-star cast included:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brad Pitt as Vaughn Walker\u003cbr>\nGeorge Clooney as plaintiffs' attorney David Boies\u003cbr>\nMartin Sheen as plaintiffs' attorney Theodore Olson\u003cbr>\nChristine Lahti and Jamie Lee Curtis as plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kevin Bacon, John C Reilly and Jane Lynch also had roles. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://act.afer.org/site/PageServer?pagename=8LALivestreamRSVP\">Full cast here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's director \u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DcGbPqRqS8o\">Rob Reiner talking about the performance\u003c/a>. \"The Prop 8 proponents are still trying to hide what happened at the trial,\" Reiner says, perhaps referring to Prop 8 backers' \u003ca href=\"http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8529684\">successful attempt at preventing the release of videotapes from the trial\u003c/a>. \"So we're going to do the exact opposite, we're gonna broadcast it to the entire world.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe width=\"480\" height=\"274\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/DcGbPqRqS8o\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "58332 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=58332",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/03/02/watch-live-saturday-730-p-m-reading-of-prop-8-play-with-george-clooney-brad-pitt/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 192,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 11
},
"modified": 1330882543,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the court challenge to Proposition 8, live-streamed Saturday night a Los Angeles reading of 8, Dustin Lance Black's play about the trial in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. The play is made up largely of transcripts from the trial.",
"title": "Watch Video Replay of Prop 8 Play With George Clooney, Brad Pitt | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Watch Video Replay of Prop 8 Play With George Clooney, Brad Pitt ",
"datePublished": "2012-03-02T23:59:57-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-03-04T09:35:43-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "watch-live-saturday-730-p-m-reading-of-prop-8-play-with-george-clooney-brad-pitt",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/58332/watch-live-saturday-730-p-m-reading-of-prop-8-play-with-george-clooney-brad-pitt",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is sponsoring the court challenge to Proposition 8, live-streamed Saturday night a Los Angeles reading of \u003cem>8\u003c/em>, Dustin Lance Black's play about the trial in which Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. The play is made up largely of \u003ca href=\"http://www.afer.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/page/2/\">transcripts from the trial\u003c/a>. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanEqualRights/featured?v=qlUG8F9uVgM\">Click here or on the image below to watch a video replay of the play\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanEqualRights/featured?v=qlUG8F9uVgM\">\u003cimg src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/03/8LA-live-2-300x155.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"prop 8 play live Pitt Clooney\" width=\"300\" height=\"155\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-58365\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanEqualRights/featured?v=qlUG8F9uVgM\">\u003cstrong>Watch video replay on YouTube\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The all-star cast included:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Brad Pitt as Vaughn Walker\u003cbr>\nGeorge Clooney as plaintiffs' attorney David Boies\u003cbr>\nMartin Sheen as plaintiffs' attorney Theodore Olson\u003cbr>\nChristine Lahti and Jamie Lee Curtis as plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kevin Bacon, John C Reilly and Jane Lynch also had roles. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://act.afer.org/site/PageServer?pagename=8LALivestreamRSVP\">Full cast here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's director \u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DcGbPqRqS8o\">Rob Reiner talking about the performance\u003c/a>. \"The Prop 8 proponents are still trying to hide what happened at the trial,\" Reiner says, perhaps referring to Prop 8 backers' \u003ca href=\"http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8529684\">successful attempt at preventing the release of videotapes from the trial\u003c/a>. \"So we're going to do the exact opposite, we're gonna broadcast it to the entire world.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: center\">\u003ciframe width=\"480\" height=\"274\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/DcGbPqRqS8o\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/div>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/58332/watch-live-saturday-730-p-m-reading-of-prop-8-play-with-george-clooney-brad-pitt",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_223",
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_57174": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_57174",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "57174",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1329866427000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1329866427,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis of Prop 8 \u003ci>En Banc\u003c/i> Filing: Proponents Looking For Stronger Dissent to Take to SCOTUS",
"title": "Analysis of Prop 8 \u003ci>En Banc\u003c/i> Filing: Proponents Looking For Stronger Dissent to Take to SCOTUS",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_57193\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 180px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8Sm.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-57193\" title=\"Prop8Sm\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8Sm.jpg\" alt=\"Prop 8\" width=\"180\" height=\"122\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters at a 2011 hearing on Prop 8. (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Proponents of Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, have asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc review of a ruling by a three-judge panel upholding a lower court's striking down the law as unconstitutional. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8_EnBanc_Petition.pdf\">Read the petition for an en banc panel here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier today, KQED's Scott Shafer talked to Hastings law professor Rory Little about the procedure for and the legal strategy behind asking for an en banc panel. Edited transcript \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Explain the en banc process. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Normally the filing is styled as a petition for a rehearing or for a rehearing en banc. A rehearing by the original panel is not granted very often. It's possible that the original panel either determines that the petitioners have shown an obvious error, so we don't need to go en banc because we can correct it ourselves, or the panel will sometimes adjust their opinion trying to head off an en banc. They're not likely to consider granting a rehearing of their own, but you never know. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a case like this, almost certainly the panel will refer it to the en banc court. It would then go to a judge who's called the en banc coordinator. That coordinator will send it out and say here's a petition for rehearing en banc – and they get a ton of these. But this one will get special attention. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A majority of active judges in the circuit needs to grant an en banc hearing. That's 13 votes, which is very hard to get in a circuit that has 7,000 – 8,000 appeals filed a year. They grant maybe 15-20 en bancs a year.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">I think [Prop 8 proponents] are pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\"\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has said more than once that the 9th circuit ought to use its en banc power to clear up problematic decisions before the cases get to us. Then there are other judges who believe that if a case is an outlier, it's the Supreme Court's job to clear it up, not the en banc court. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the kind of case that's always granted en banc: a case in which different panels of the 9th circuit have reached opposite conclusions, meaning an intra-circuit conflict. This case is not going to have any intra-circuit conflicts associated with it. The other kind of case is an inter-circuit conflict, where the opinion of the panel conflicts with opinions from other circuits. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop 8 backers will assert that the panel's opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority. The other thing they'll say is this is a matter of exceptional importance, even though it's a California case, because it's a huge state and also because parts of the panel's opinion cannot be limited to California. For example, the panel's rejecting the pro-Prop 8 rationale for the law as not having a rational basis is not restricted to California. That rational basis analysis, you would think, applies to virtually any gay rights case. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are judges on the circuit who believe that if there's an inter-circuit conflict, that's not a job for the en banc court, it's a job for the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court, frankly, believes that 9th circuit panels generate more outlier decisions, and that a number of decisions every year are obviously incorrect. So they think these cases should be handled by the circuit en banc and not by the Supreme Court in a summary reversal. Every year a large number of summary reversals by the Supreme Court are from the 9th circuit. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What’s the legal strategy in asking for an en banc panel? The en banc panel is chosen at random, so it's a bit of a crapshoot, isn't it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The strategy is that if they ask for en banc and it's denied, then in a sense they've exhausted all the remedies, and it makes it a slightly stronger case for Supreme Court review. Because the Supreme Court often says 'why didn't you ask for an en banc hearing?' \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Secondly, my guess is they believe they would do better if the right judges were put on the en banc panel. If they get \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1803&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">O`Scannlain\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2981&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Bybee\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3121&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Ikuta\u003c/a> my guess is they might get a stronger dissent. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think they're pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the best result for proponents: They don't get enough votes for en banc, but they get a forceful dissent from the denial of en banc from O`Scannlain and Bybee and whoever they can pick up, which they can then use as their petition to the Supreme Court. Bybee and O`Scannlain have had a number of cases granted in the last five years from their dissents from en banc. Those guys are in the business of writing cert petitions, basically. And they're powerful writers. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In terms of timing, do new briefs have to be filed with the en banc panel?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They do not have to have a second round of briefing. There are circuits that routinely do en banc without new briefs being filed. The 9th Circuit has tended to ask for a new en banc briefing, because sometimes the cases on which they grant en banc haven't been briefed very well, frankly. But that's hard to say in this case. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There will be people really strategically maneuvering within the court on this one, on both sides. There is an argument that says, fine, let's re-hear it en banc, and now we'll get eight judges to say it's unconstitutional instead of just two.\n \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "57174 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=57174",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/02/21/prop-8-en-banc-hearing-deadline-today/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1070,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 28
},
"modified": 1329871884,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Proponents of Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, have asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc review of a ruling by a three-judge panel upholding a lower court's striking down the law as unconstitutional. An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit. Read",
"title": "Analysis of Prop 8 \u003ci>En Banc\u003c/i> Filing: Proponents Looking For Stronger Dissent to Take to SCOTUS | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis of Prop 8 \u003ci>En Banc\u003c/i> Filing: Proponents Looking For Stronger Dissent to Take to SCOTUS",
"datePublished": "2012-02-21T15:20:27-08:00",
"dateModified": "2012-02-21T16:51:24-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "prop-8-en-banc-hearing-deadline-today",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/57174/prop-8-en-banc-hearing-deadline-today",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_57193\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 180px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8Sm.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-57193\" title=\"Prop8Sm\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8Sm.jpg\" alt=\"Prop 8\" width=\"180\" height=\"122\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Protesters at a 2011 hearing on Prop 8. (Photo: Scott Shafer/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Proponents of Proposition 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, have asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc review of a ruling by a three-judge panel upholding a lower court's striking down the law as unconstitutional. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/02/Prop8_EnBanc_Petition.pdf\">Read the petition for an en banc panel here\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier today, KQED's Scott Shafer talked to Hastings law professor Rory Little about the procedure for and the legal strategy behind asking for an en banc panel. Edited transcript \u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Explain the en banc process. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong> \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Normally the filing is styled as a petition for a rehearing or for a rehearing en banc. A rehearing by the original panel is not granted very often. It's possible that the original panel either determines that the petitioners have shown an obvious error, so we don't need to go en banc because we can correct it ourselves, or the panel will sometimes adjust their opinion trying to head off an en banc. They're not likely to consider granting a rehearing of their own, but you never know. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In a case like this, almost certainly the panel will refer it to the en banc court. It would then go to a judge who's called the en banc coordinator. That coordinator will send it out and say here's a petition for rehearing en banc – and they get a ton of these. But this one will get special attention. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A majority of active judges in the circuit needs to grant an en banc hearing. That's 13 votes, which is very hard to get in a circuit that has 7,000 – 8,000 appeals filed a year. They grant maybe 15-20 en bancs a year.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">I think [Prop 8 proponents] are pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\"\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court has said more than once that the 9th circuit ought to use its en banc power to clear up problematic decisions before the cases get to us. Then there are other judges who believe that if a case is an outlier, it's the Supreme Court's job to clear it up, not the en banc court. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the kind of case that's always granted en banc: a case in which different panels of the 9th circuit have reached opposite conclusions, meaning an intra-circuit conflict. This case is not going to have any intra-circuit conflicts associated with it. The other kind of case is an inter-circuit conflict, where the opinion of the panel conflicts with opinions from other circuits. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Prop 8 backers will assert that the panel's opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority. The other thing they'll say is this is a matter of exceptional importance, even though it's a California case, because it's a huge state and also because parts of the panel's opinion cannot be limited to California. For example, the panel's rejecting the pro-Prop 8 rationale for the law as not having a rational basis is not restricted to California. That rational basis analysis, you would think, applies to virtually any gay rights case. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There are judges on the circuit who believe that if there's an inter-circuit conflict, that's not a job for the en banc court, it's a job for the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court, frankly, believes that 9th circuit panels generate more outlier decisions, and that a number of decisions every year are obviously incorrect. So they think these cases should be handled by the circuit en banc and not by the Supreme Court in a summary reversal. Every year a large number of summary reversals by the Supreme Court are from the 9th circuit. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What’s the legal strategy in asking for an en banc panel? The en banc panel is chosen at random, so it's a bit of a crapshoot, isn't it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The strategy is that if they ask for en banc and it's denied, then in a sense they've exhausted all the remedies, and it makes it a slightly stronger case for Supreme Court review. Because the Supreme Court often says 'why didn't you ask for an en banc hearing?' \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Secondly, my guess is they believe they would do better if the right judges were put on the en banc panel. If they get \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=1803&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">O`Scannlain\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2981&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Bybee\u003c/a> or \u003ca href=\"http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3121&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na\">Ikuta\u003c/a> my guess is they might get a stronger dissent. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I think they're pretty disappointed with Judge Smith's dissent, which was not a ringing Scalia-like forceful \"this is wrong.\" It was more like \"we should be cautious, although there are a lot of good points here.\" \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here's the best result for proponents: They don't get enough votes for en banc, but they get a forceful dissent from the denial of en banc from O`Scannlain and Bybee and whoever they can pick up, which they can then use as their petition to the Supreme Court. Bybee and O`Scannlain have had a number of cases granted in the last five years from their dissents from en banc. Those guys are in the business of writing cert petitions, basically. And they're powerful writers. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In terms of timing, do new briefs have to be filed with the en banc panel?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Rory Little\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>They do not have to have a second round of briefing. There are circuits that routinely do en banc without new briefs being filed. The 9th Circuit has tended to ask for a new en banc briefing, because sometimes the cases on which they grant en banc haven't been briefed very well, frankly. But that's hard to say in this case. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There will be people really strategically maneuvering within the court on this one, on both sides. There is an argument that says, fine, let's re-hear it en banc, and now we'll get eight judges to say it's unconstitutional instead of just two.\n \u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/57174/prop-8-en-banc-hearing-deadline-today",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_323",
"news_126",
"news_322"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "\"KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvbmV3cy9jYXRlZ29yeS9iYXktY3VyaW91cy1wb2RjYXN0L2ZlZWQvcG9kY2FzdA",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1MDAyODE4NTgz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "\"KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvbmV3cy9zZXJpZXMvamVycnlicm93bi9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5Nzk2MzI2MTEx",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vc29sZG91dA"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM4MjU5Nzg2MzI3",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM0NTcwODQ2MjY2",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=perry-v-schwarzenegger": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 0,
"postsToRender": 9
},
"tag": null,
"vitalsOnly": true,
"totalRequested": 9,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 51,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_11911275",
"news_99462",
"news_91703",
"news_55537",
"news_67415",
"news_67195",
"news_67069",
"news_58332",
"news_57174"
]
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"subscriptionsReducer": {},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_323": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_323",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "323",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null,
"imageData": {
"ogImageSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"width": 1200,
"height": 630
},
"twImageSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
},
"twitterCard": "summary_large_image"
}
},
"ttid": 331,
"slug": "perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_27626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_27626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "27626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "featured-news",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "featured-news Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 27643,
"slug": "featured-news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/featured-news"
},
"news_126": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_126",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "126",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 8",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Proposition 8 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 130,
"slug": "proposition-8",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-8"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_1244": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1244",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1244",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1256,
"slug": "vaughn-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-walker"
},
"news_6944": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6944",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6944",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/News-Fix-Logo-Web-Banners-04.png",
"name": "News Fix",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The News Fix is a daily news podcast from KQED that breaks down the latest headlines and provides in-depth analysis of the stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "News Fix - Daily Dose of Bay Area News | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6968,
"slug": "news-fix",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/news-fix"
},
"news_82": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_82",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "82",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBT",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBT Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 83,
"slug": "lgbt",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbt"
},
"news_1196": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1196",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1196",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Vaughn R. Walker",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Vaughn R. Walker Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1208,
"slug": "vaughn-r-walker",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/vaughn-r-walker"
},
"news_4863": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4863",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4863",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals",
"slug": "9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 4882,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/9th-u-s-circuit-court-of-appeals"
},
"news_335": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_335",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "335",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Barack Obama",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Barack Obama Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 343,
"slug": "barack-obama",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/barack-obama"
},
"news_548": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_548",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "548",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 557,
"slug": "california-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/california-supreme-court"
},
"news_893": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_893",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "893",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Defense of Marriage Act",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Defense of Marriage Act Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 903,
"slug": "defense-of-marriage-act",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/defense-of-marriage-act"
},
"news_3672": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_3672",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "3672",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "DOMA",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "DOMA Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 3690,
"slug": "doma",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/doma"
},
"news_2626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Gay marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Gay marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2642,
"slug": "gay-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/gay-marriage"
},
"news_1172": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1172",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1172",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "U.S. Supreme Court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1183,
"slug": "u-s-supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/u-s-supreme-court"
},
"news_932": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "supreme court",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "supreme court Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 942,
"slug": "supreme-court",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/supreme-court"
},
"news_223": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_223",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 231,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/arts-and-culture"
}
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"localStorageReducer": {},
"browserHistoryReducer": [],
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {},
"restaurantData": []
},
"location": {
"pathname": "/news/tag/perry-v-schwarzenegger",
"previousPathname": "/"
}
}
