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_10461709": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10461709",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10461709",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10461515,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-400x250.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 250
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-320x200.jpg",
"width": 320,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 200
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform.jpg",
"width": 1439,
"height": 900
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-800x500.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 500
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-1180x738.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 738
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-768x480.jpg",
"width": 768,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 480
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/2757_transform-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1426901664,
"modified": 1435243081,
"caption": "The U.S. Supreme Court building, in Washington, D.C.",
"description": "The US Supreme Court Building is seen in this March 31, 2012 photo on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)",
"title": "The US Supreme Court Building is seen in",
"credit": "Karen Bleier/AFP-Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10356156": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10356156",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10356156",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10356105,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-400x271.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 271
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-e1416954725536.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"height": 978
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-1440x978.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 978
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-800x543.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 543
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/11/5446958381_9e90f58cab_o-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1416954615,
"modified": 1447343608,
"caption": "San Francisco police car parked outside the Hall of Justice. ",
"description": "An SFPD squad car.",
"title": "San Francisco Police",
"credit": "Todd Lappin/Flickr",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10576032": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10576032",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10576032",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10343037,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-400x225.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 225
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-960x540.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 540
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-1440x810.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 810
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 450
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"jmtc-small-thumb": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-280x150.jpg",
"width": 280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-1180x664.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 664
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2014/10/FlagScotusDude-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1435193540,
"modified": 1435193584,
"caption": "Gay rights supporter Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on June 26, 2013.",
"description": "Gay rights supporter Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on June 26, 2013.",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court Issues Orders On DOMA And Prop 8 Cases",
"credit": "Win McNamee/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_106735": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_106735",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "106735",
"found": true
},
"parent": 106668,
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2013/08/176425074-e1376436904347.jpg",
"width": 640,
"height": 448
}
},
"publishDate": 1376436598,
"modified": 1376436598,
"caption": null,
"description": null,
"title": "176425074",
"credit": null,
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"byline_news_10356105": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_10356105",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_10356105",
"name": "Associated Press ",
"isLoading": false
},
"byline_news_10343037": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "byline_news_10343037",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"slug": "byline_news_10343037",
"name": "Kimberlee Kruesi and Kimberly Pierceall\u003cbr />Associated Press",
"isLoading": false
},
"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"
},
"danbrekke": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "222",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "222",
"found": true
},
"name": "Dan Brekke",
"firstName": "Dan",
"lastName": "Brekke",
"slug": "danbrekke",
"email": "dbrekke@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news",
"science"
],
"title": "KQED Editor and Reporter",
"bio": "Dan Brekke is a reporter and editor for KQED News, responsible for coverage of topics ranging from California water issues to the Bay Area's transportation challenges. In a newsroom career that began in Chicago in 1972, Dan has worked for \u003cem>The San Francisco Examiner,\u003c/em> Wired and TechTV and has been published in The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, Business 2.0, Salon and elsewhere.\r\n\r\nSince joining KQED in 2007, Dan has reported, edited and produced both radio and online features and breaking news pieces. He has shared as both editor and reporter in four Society of Professional Journalists Norcal Excellence in Journalism awards and one Edward R. Murrow regional award. He was chosen for a spring 2017 residency at the Mesa Refuge to advance his research on California salmon.\r\n\r\nEmail Dan at: \u003ca href=\"mailto:dbrekke@kqed.org\">dbrekke@kqed.org\u003c/a>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Twitter:\u003c/strong> \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/danbrekke\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">twitter.com/danbrekke\u003c/a>\r\n\u003cstrong>Facebook:\u003c/strong> \u003ca href=\"https://www.facebook.com/danbrekke\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">www.facebook.com/danbrekke\u003c/a>\r\n\u003cstrong>LinkedIn:\u003c/strong> \u003ca href=\"https://www.linkedin.com/in/danbrekke\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">www.linkedin.com/in/danbrekke\u003c/a>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8126230345efca3f7aa89b1a402be45?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twitter": "danbrekke",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": "https://www.instagram.com/dan.brekke/",
"linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/danbrekke/",
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator",
"create_posts"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Dan Brekke | KQED",
"description": "KQED Editor and Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8126230345efca3f7aa89b1a402be45?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8126230345efca3f7aa89b1a402be45?s=600&d=mm&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/danbrekke"
},
"davidweir": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "223",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "223",
"found": true
},
"name": "David Weir",
"firstName": "David",
"lastName": "Weir",
"slug": "davidweir",
"email": "dweir@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "David Weir is KQED's senior editor for digital news. He previously worked at \u003cem>Rolling Stone,\u003c/em> Salon, Wired Digital, Excite@Home,\u003cem> Mother Jones,\u003c/em> and as a co-founder and executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting.\r\n\r\nOver the past 40 years, he and his teams have won dozens of awards, including a National Magazine Award, an IRE Award and a Webby. He has authored or co-authored four books, including (with Mark Schapiro) \u003cem>Circle of Poison.\u003c/em>\r\n\r\nHe has a ba\u003cspan class=\"example\">chelor's degree\u003c/span> in journalism from the University of Michigan, and has taught journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford and San Francisco State.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c6642c16c4d2d2de5e6f067edf92b9c8?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "David Weir | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c6642c16c4d2d2de5e6f067edf92b9c8?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c6642c16c4d2d2de5e6f067edf92b9c8?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/davidweir"
},
"kqed": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "236",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "236",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqed",
"email": "faq@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef0e801a68c4c54afa9180db14084167?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqed"
},
"kqednewsstaffandwires": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "237",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "237",
"found": true
},
"name": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"firstName": "KQED News Staff and Wires",
"lastName": null,
"slug": "kqednewsstaffandwires",
"email": "onlinenewsstaff@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": null,
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "lowdown",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "KQED News Staff and Wires | KQED",
"description": null,
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/72295af8ebbfbd19a4948f5271285664?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/kqednewsstaffandwires"
},
"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",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"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"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_tag_supreme-court": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_932",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "932",
"score": 8.555515
},
"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,
"title": "supreme court",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 7
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?tag=supreme-court",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 7
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"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_10530405": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10530405",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10530405",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1431983573000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1431983573,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of S.F. Cops in Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman",
"title": "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of S.F. Cops in Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that two San Francisco police officers who entered a mentally ill woman's room, then shot her when she tried to attack them with a knife, are entitled to immunity from a lawsuit alleging they violated the woman's constitutional rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That ruling settles part of the case arising from \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/09/30/half-of-those-killed-by-san-francisco-police-are-mentally-ill\" target=\"_blank\">a 2008 incident\u003c/a> in which San Francisco police Sgt. Kimberly Reynolds and Officer Katherine Holder shot Theresa Sheehan five times during an incident in a Mission District co-op house for the mentally ill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the high court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1412_0pl1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">a 6-2 decision\u003c/a> leaves open the possibility that the city could be held liable for violating the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[contextly_sidebar id=\"FYfy6SCUoxtgzCpdvIRaFIpvcHJoGDxI\"]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sheehan, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, filed a federal lawsuit against the city arguing police violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate her mental illness during her arrest. The suit also alleged Reynolds and Holder forced a violent confrontation with Sheehan, who was armed with a knife, and violated her Fourth Amendment rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco rejected both of Sheehan's claims and granted summary judgment to the city, but a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed his ruling and ordered the lower court to try the suit. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That, in turn, led the city to appeal and to Monday's action by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Charles Breyer's involvement led Associate Justice Stephen Breyer to recuse himself from the Supreme Court's consideration of the case.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court found that the police officers acted within the law and were entitled to \"qualified immunity\" from legal action.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Christine Van Aken, the deputy city attorney \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-analysis-can-a-really-rough-start-be-overcome/\" target=\"_blank\">who argued the case\u003c/a> before the high court in March, said Monday she was pleased with the outcome for Holder and Reynolds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The court's ruling makes it clear that the officers acted reasonably in doing their best to deal with a situation where they saw a lot of risk factors and did their best to resolve the situation right away,\" Van Aken told KQED's Peter Jon Shuler.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the court declined to rule on the much broader issue that San Francisco had originally brought to the court: Whether the ADA's requirement for reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities applies to police officers facing violent situations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In fact, both the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and the dissent by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the city for failing to follow up that main argument -- \"the only question for [the Supreme Court] to resolve is whether any accommodation of an armed and violent individual is reasonable or required\" under the ADA -- after the high tribunal accepted the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, the city argued in its briefs and at oral argument that the ADA's accommodation requirements didn't apply in Sheehan's case because her violent behavior disqualified her for such treatment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since the city didn't contest the ADA case on the grounds it had cited on appeal, the court majority dismissed that part of the city's case as \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/news/2013/01/31/AndAfterAllThatWorkTheDreadedUSSupremeCourtDIG_Sungaila.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">improvidently granted\u003c/a>.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scalia, joined in his minority opinion by Associate Justice Elena Kagan, was more blunt. He accused city attorneys of a \"bait and switch\" in its legal strategy:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Petitioners [San Francisco] faulted the Ninth Circuit for “holding that the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement applies to officers facing violent circumstances,” a conclusion that was “in direct conflict with the categorical prohibition on such claims adopted by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits.” Petitioners had expressly advocated for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits’ position in the Court of Appeals. ... “[T]he ADA does not apply to police officers’ responses to violent individuals who happen to be mentally ill, where officers have not yet brought the violent situation under control”). Imagine our surprise, then, when the petitioners’ principal brief, reply brief, and oral argument had nary a word to say about that subject.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Scalia, in fact, wrote that he wanted the court to dismiss San Francisco's entire appeal, because allowing even the portion concerning the individual police officers to stand amounted to rewarding the city for \"snookering\" the court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court's ruling effectively reinstates the 9th Circuit's order for a trial on Sheehan's ADA claim against the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sheehan attorney Ben Nisenbaum said he was pleased with the court's ruling because \"it allows our client to have her day in court\" and recover damages. Deputy City Attorney Van Aken said the city is prepared to defend the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What exactly is behind the city's switch in legal strategy -- which Scalia and other justices \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-analysis-can-a-really-rough-start-be-overcome/\" target=\"_blank\">pointedly questioned\u003c/a> during oral arguments two months ago?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/sheehan_case_of_police_shooting_mentally_ill_woman_san_francisco_saved_the.html\" target=\"_blank\">Slate argues\u003c/a> that the city's retreat from its original argument may have been by design and intended to support those who argue that police officers must accommodate the mentally ill in violent situations:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Anybody who cares about disability rights, then, should be grateful for San Francisco’s dodge. It may have been inglorious and, legally speaking, a little unseemly. But it reflected a pragmatism that has been conspicuously absent from recent progressive litigation. San Francisco’s city attorney won’t win many laurels for his last-minute evasion. But his maneuvering saved the rest of the country from a ruling that may have given cops free rein to treat mentally disabled people like typical violent offenders—and pull the trigger accordingly.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Of course, even experts are having a problem explaining how this case turned out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Asked by Peter Jon Shuler whether the city had bungled the case, Stanford law Professor Robert Wiseberg said, \"I can't tell whether it was bungled or just a change of mind, a chickening out of the ADA issue -- I just don't know.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"sheehanscotus\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/265779909/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_48501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10530405 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10530405",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/18/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-s-f-cops-in-shooting-of-mentally-ill-woman/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 988,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 27
},
"modified": 1432006201,
"excerpt": "But justices dismiss central issue in case: whether police must 'accommodate' mentally ill suspects.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "But justices dismiss central issue in case: whether police must 'accommodate' mentally ill suspects.",
"title": "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of S.F. Cops in Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of S.F. Cops in Shooting of Mentally Ill Woman",
"datePublished": "2015-05-18T14:12:53-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-05-18T20:30:01-07:00",
"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": "supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-s-f-cops-in-shooting-of-mentally-ill-woman",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/10530405/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-s-f-cops-in-shooting-of-mentally-ill-woman",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that two San Francisco police officers who entered a mentally ill woman's room, then shot her when she tried to attack them with a knife, are entitled to immunity from a lawsuit alleging they violated the woman's constitutional rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That ruling settles part of the case arising from \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/09/30/half-of-those-killed-by-san-francisco-police-are-mentally-ill\" target=\"_blank\">a 2008 incident\u003c/a> in which San Francisco police Sgt. Kimberly Reynolds and Officer Katherine Holder shot Theresa Sheehan five times during an incident in a Mission District co-op house for the mentally ill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the high court's \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1412_0pl1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">a 6-2 decision\u003c/a> leaves open the possibility that the city could be held liable for violating the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sheehan, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, filed a federal lawsuit against the city arguing police violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate her mental illness during her arrest. The suit also alleged Reynolds and Holder forced a violent confrontation with Sheehan, who was armed with a knife, and violated her Fourth Amendment rights.\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>U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco rejected both of Sheehan's claims and granted summary judgment to the city, but a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed his ruling and ordered the lower court to try the suit. \u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That, in turn, led the city to appeal and to Monday's action by the U.S. Supreme Court. (Charles Breyer's involvement led Associate Justice Stephen Breyer to recuse himself from the Supreme Court's consideration of the case.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The high court found that the police officers acted within the law and were entitled to \"qualified immunity\" from legal action.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Christine Van Aken, the deputy city attorney \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-analysis-can-a-really-rough-start-be-overcome/\" target=\"_blank\">who argued the case\u003c/a> before the high court in March, said Monday she was pleased with the outcome for Holder and Reynolds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The court's ruling makes it clear that the officers acted reasonably in doing their best to deal with a situation where they saw a lot of risk factors and did their best to resolve the situation right away,\" Van Aken told KQED's Peter Jon Shuler.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But the court declined to rule on the much broader issue that San Francisco had originally brought to the court: Whether the ADA's requirement for reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities applies to police officers facing violent situations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In fact, both the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and the dissent by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the city for failing to follow up that main argument -- \"the only question for [the Supreme Court] to resolve is whether any accommodation of an armed and violent individual is reasonable or required\" under the ADA -- after the high tribunal accepted the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Instead, the city argued in its briefs and at oral argument that the ADA's accommodation requirements didn't apply in Sheehan's case because her violent behavior disqualified her for such treatment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since the city didn't contest the ADA case on the grounds it had cited on appeal, the court majority dismissed that part of the city's case as \"\u003ca href=\"http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/news/2013/01/31/AndAfterAllThatWorkTheDreadedUSSupremeCourtDIG_Sungaila.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">improvidently granted\u003c/a>.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scalia, joined in his minority opinion by Associate Justice Elena Kagan, was more blunt. He accused city attorneys of a \"bait and switch\" in its legal strategy:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Petitioners [San Francisco] faulted the Ninth Circuit for “holding that the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement applies to officers facing violent circumstances,” a conclusion that was “in direct conflict with the categorical prohibition on such claims adopted by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits.” Petitioners had expressly advocated for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits’ position in the Court of Appeals. ... “[T]he ADA does not apply to police officers’ responses to violent individuals who happen to be mentally ill, where officers have not yet brought the violent situation under control”). Imagine our surprise, then, when the petitioners’ principal brief, reply brief, and oral argument had nary a word to say about that subject.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Scalia, in fact, wrote that he wanted the court to dismiss San Francisco's entire appeal, because allowing even the portion concerning the individual police officers to stand amounted to rewarding the city for \"snookering\" the court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Supreme Court's ruling effectively reinstates the 9th Circuit's order for a trial on Sheehan's ADA claim against the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Sheehan attorney Ben Nisenbaum said he was pleased with the court's ruling because \"it allows our client to have her day in court\" and recover damages. Deputy City Attorney Van Aken said the city is prepared to defend the case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>What exactly is behind the city's switch in legal strategy -- which Scalia and other justices \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-analysis-can-a-really-rough-start-be-overcome/\" target=\"_blank\">pointedly questioned\u003c/a> during oral arguments two months ago?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/sheehan_case_of_police_shooting_mentally_ill_woman_san_francisco_saved_the.html\" target=\"_blank\">Slate argues\u003c/a> that the city's retreat from its original argument may have been by design and intended to support those who argue that police officers must accommodate the mentally ill in violent situations:\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>Anybody who cares about disability rights, then, should be grateful for San Francisco’s dodge. It may have been inglorious and, legally speaking, a little unseemly. But it reflected a pragmatism that has been conspicuously absent from recent progressive litigation. San Francisco’s city attorney won’t win many laurels for his last-minute evasion. But his maneuvering saved the rest of the country from a ruling that may have given cops free rein to treat mentally disabled people like typical violent offenders—and pull the trigger accordingly.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>Of course, even experts are having a problem explaining how this case turned out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Asked by Peter Jon Shuler whether the city had bungled the case, Stanford law Professor Robert Wiseberg said, \"I can't tell whether it was bungled or just a change of mind, a chickening out of the ADA issue -- I just don't know.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca id=\"sheehanscotus\">\u003c/a>\u003cbr>\n\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe class=\"scribd_iframe_embed\" src=\"https://www.scribd.com/embeds/265779909/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true\" data-auto-height=\"false\" data-aspect-ratio=\"undefined\" scrolling=\"no\" id=\"doc_48501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10530405/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-s-f-cops-in-shooting-of-mentally-ill-woman",
"authors": [
"222"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_38",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_10461709",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_10356105": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10356105",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10356105",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1416955094000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1416955094,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear San Francisco Case on Police Handling of Disabled",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear San Francisco Case on Police Handling of Disabled",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112514zr_32q3.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">announced Tuesday\u003c/a> it will consider whether police must comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act when confronting armed or violent suspects who are mentally ill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal from the city and county of San Francisco, arguing that disability laws do not apply to officers facing violent circumstances.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case arose in August 2008 when two San Francisco police officers checked on Teresa Sheehan, a woman with a history of mental health problems. She pulled a knife and two responding officers, Kimberly Reynolds and Katherine Holder, ended up shooting five or six times.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. District Court in San Francisco rejected Sheehan's claims that the officers and the city violated disability laws and entered her room without a valid search warrant. But \u003ca href=\"http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/21/11-16401.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed\u003c/a>, saying Sheehan's suit against the officers and the city should be allowed to go forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10356105 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10356105",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/11/25/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-san-francisco-case-on-police-disabled/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 164,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 6
},
"modified": 1416962576,
"excerpt": "Justices will decide whether police must obey federal disability law when handling mentally ill suspects.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Justices will decide whether police must obey federal disability law when handling mentally ill suspects.",
"title": "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear San Francisco Case on Police Handling of Disabled | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear San Francisco Case on Police Handling of Disabled",
"datePublished": "2014-11-25T14:38:14-08:00",
"dateModified": "2014-11-25T16:42:56-08:00",
"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": "u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-san-francisco-case-on-police-disabled",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Associated Press ",
"path": "/news/10356105/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-san-francisco-case-on-police-disabled",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court \u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112514zr_32q3.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">announced Tuesday\u003c/a> it will consider whether police must comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act when confronting armed or violent suspects who are mentally ill.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal from the city and county of San Francisco, arguing that disability laws do not apply to officers facing violent circumstances.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The case arose in August 2008 when two San Francisco police officers checked on Teresa Sheehan, a woman with a history of mental health problems. She pulled a knife and two responding officers, Kimberly Reynolds and Katherine Holder, ended up shooting five or six times.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. District Court in San Francisco rejected Sheehan's claims that the officers and the city violated disability laws and entered her room without a valid search warrant. But \u003ca href=\"http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/21/11-16401.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed\u003c/a>, saying Sheehan's suit against the officers and the city should be allowed to go forward.\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/10356105/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-san-francisco-case-on-police-disabled",
"authors": [
"byline_news_10356105"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_545",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_10356156",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_10343037": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_10343037",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10343037",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1412800286000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1412800286,
"format": "standard",
"disqusTitle": "High Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriages in Idaho",
"title": "High Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriages in Idaho",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>LAS VEGAS — The uncertainty over gay marriage hit couples in the West as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed same-sex couples in Nevada to exchange vows but blocked those in Idaho from doing the same.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling allowed same-sex marriages to begin in the Silver State, clarifying an earlier order. Kennedy said Wednesday afternoon that he is temporarily putting on hold same-sex marriage in Idaho, where state officials have asked for the delay. Officials in Nevada didn't request a stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kennedy's orders were the latest twist in the national drama unfolding as more states see same-sex unions made legal and others continue to fight such a change, leaving many couples in limbo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The news of Kennedy's initial stay in Idaho, delivered at 8:01 a.m. to about 10 gay couples and dozens of their supporters, left a crowded room in a Boise clerk's office in silence, except for a small child asking, \"Why?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amber Beierle, one of the eight women who sued Idaho over the gay marriage ban, had hoped to marry her partner, Rachael. They arrived at the courthouse before it opened at 8 a.m.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We were past the metal detectors, we were just a few feet away from the clerk and then our attorney was handed a one-page document,\" Beierle said. \"Apparently it was Justice Kennedy telling us no.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She said the hardest part was calling her mom to tell her she wasn't going to be able to get married after all.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rachael Beierle, who has had her last name legally changed, said the room was filled with emotions, but it was even more difficult listening to the children ask their parents what was going on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"To hear a 4-year-old ask, 'Why, Mommy? Why can't you get married?'\" she said. \"We're asking the same questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There has been a flurry of legal activity over gay marriage this week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused an appeal, which effectively made gay marriage legal in 30 states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals followed the Supreme Court's action with a ruling declaring that gay couples' equal protection rights were violated by the same-sex-marriage bans in both states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Idaho Gov. C.L. \"Butch\" Otter said in a statement he was \"pleased\" with Justice Kennedy's early morning stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I intend to be faithful to my oath of office and keep working to protect the Idaho Constitution and the mandate of Idaho voters in support of traditional marriage,\" Otter said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both Otter and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden filed emergency motions early Wednesday morning in an effort to delay Tuesday's ruling that declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada. Kennedy's order came just over an hour after the motion was filed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's unclear just how long the U.S. Supreme Court will keep the Idaho stay in effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The next thing that is sure to happen is that the plaintiffs in this case will file their opposition to the stay, and then Justice Kennedy — probably sometime on Friday — will issue an opinion on whether the stay should be continued,\" said Shaakirrah Sanders, an associate law professor with the University of Idaho's College of Law in Boise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th U.S. Circuit's decision to make its Tuesday ruling effective immediately was unusual, Sanders said, because it removed the procedural grace period that parties to a case normally have to appeal. The stay from Kennedy could be less about wanting to consider the results of the case and more about reminding the 9th Circuit that it shouldn't skirt the rules, she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials at Lambda Legal, the gay rights advocacy organization that argued the Nevada case on behalf of eight same-sex couples, noted only Idaho sought the stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Jon Davidson, the group's legal director, had called for the nation's highest court to clarify whether Nevada can issue marriage licenses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Pierceall reported from Las Vegas. Associated Press reporters Ken Ritter and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas, Rebecca Boone in Boise and Paul Elias in San Francisco contributed to this report.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "10343037 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=10343037",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/10/08/high-court-blocks-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 708,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 23
},
"modified": 1435193589,
"excerpt": "Justice Kennedy grants governor's request to stay lower court ruling. Nevada weddings allowed to proceed.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Justice Kennedy grants governor's request to stay lower court ruling. Nevada weddings allowed to proceed.",
"title": "High Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriages in Idaho | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "High Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriages in Idaho",
"datePublished": "2014-10-08T13:31:26-07:00",
"dateModified": "2015-06-24T17:53:09-07:00",
"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": "high-court-blocks-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho",
"status": "publish",
"nprByline": "Kimberlee Kruesi and Kimberly Pierceall\u003cbr />Associated Press",
"path": "/news/10343037/high-court-blocks-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>LAS VEGAS — The uncertainty over gay marriage hit couples in the West as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed same-sex couples in Nevada to exchange vows but blocked those in Idaho from doing the same.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling allowed same-sex marriages to begin in the Silver State, clarifying an earlier order. Kennedy said Wednesday afternoon that he is temporarily putting on hold same-sex marriage in Idaho, where state officials have asked for the delay. Officials in Nevada didn't request a stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Kennedy's orders were the latest twist in the national drama unfolding as more states see same-sex unions made legal and others continue to fight such a change, leaving many couples in limbo.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The news of Kennedy's initial stay in Idaho, delivered at 8:01 a.m. to about 10 gay couples and dozens of their supporters, left a crowded room in a Boise clerk's office in silence, except for a small child asking, \"Why?\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Amber Beierle, one of the eight women who sued Idaho over the gay marriage ban, had hoped to marry her partner, Rachael. They arrived at the courthouse before it opened at 8 a.m.\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>\"We were past the metal detectors, we were just a few feet away from the clerk and then our attorney was handed a one-page document,\" Beierle said. \"Apparently it was Justice Kennedy telling us no.\"\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She said the hardest part was calling her mom to tell her she wasn't going to be able to get married after all.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Rachael Beierle, who has had her last name legally changed, said the room was filled with emotions, but it was even more difficult listening to the children ask their parents what was going on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"To hear a 4-year-old ask, 'Why, Mommy? Why can't you get married?'\" she said. \"We're asking the same questions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There has been a flurry of legal activity over gay marriage this week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused an appeal, which effectively made gay marriage legal in 30 states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Then Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals followed the Supreme Court's action with a ruling declaring that gay couples' equal protection rights were violated by the same-sex-marriage bans in both states.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Idaho Gov. C.L. \"Butch\" Otter said in a statement he was \"pleased\" with Justice Kennedy's early morning stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"I intend to be faithful to my oath of office and keep working to protect the Idaho Constitution and the mandate of Idaho voters in support of traditional marriage,\" Otter said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Both Otter and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden filed emergency motions early Wednesday morning in an effort to delay Tuesday's ruling that declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada. Kennedy's order came just over an hour after the motion was filed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's unclear just how long the U.S. Supreme Court will keep the Idaho stay in effect.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The next thing that is sure to happen is that the plaintiffs in this case will file their opposition to the stay, and then Justice Kennedy — probably sometime on Friday — will issue an opinion on whether the stay should be continued,\" said Shaakirrah Sanders, an associate law professor with the University of Idaho's College of Law in Boise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The 9th U.S. Circuit's decision to make its Tuesday ruling effective immediately was unusual, Sanders said, because it removed the procedural grace period that parties to a case normally have to appeal. The stay from Kennedy could be less about wanting to consider the results of the case and more about reminding the 9th Circuit that it shouldn't skirt the rules, she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Officials at Lambda Legal, the gay rights advocacy organization that argued the Nevada case on behalf of eight same-sex couples, noted only Idaho sought the stay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Jon Davidson, the group's legal director, had called for the nation's highest court to clarify whether Nevada can issue marriage licenses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Pierceall reported from Las Vegas. Associated Press reporters Ken Ritter and Michelle Rindels in Las Vegas, Rebecca Boone in Boise and Paul Elias in San Francisco contributed to this report.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/10343037/high-court-blocks-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho",
"authors": [
"byline_news_10343037"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_2626",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"featImg": "news_10576032",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_106668": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_106668",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "106668",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1376429556000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1376429556,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Video: Hillary Clinton Paints Grim Picture on Voting Rights",
"title": "Video: Hillary Clinton Paints Grim Picture on Voting Rights",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_106735\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/08/13/hillary-clinton-voting-rights/attachment/176425074/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-106735\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-106735 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/08/176425074-300x210.jpg\" alt=\"176425074\" width=\"300\" height=\"210\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greets attendees after speaking during the 2013 America Bar Association (ABA) annual meeting on August 12, 2013 in San Francisco. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In June, the U.S. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-2/\" target=\"_blank\">Supreme Court voided a key part of the Voting Rights Act\u003c/a>. A month later, the New York Times framed what happened afterward this way ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>State officials across the South are aggressively moving ahead with new laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls after the Supreme Court decision striking down a portion of the Voting Rights Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Republicans who control state legislatures throughout the region say such laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. But such fraud is extremely rare, and Democrats are concerned that the proposed changes will make it harder for many poor voters and members of minorities — who tend to vote Democratic — to cast their ballots in states that once discriminated against black voters with poll taxes and literacy tests. \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/politics/after-Supreme-Court-ruling-states-rush-to-enact-voting-laws.html?pagewanted=all\" target=\"_blank\">Full article\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>One Democrat who potentially has a lot to lose from suppressed voter turnout is Hillary Clinton, considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination -- should she choose to run. In San Francisco to address the American Bar Association Monday, Clinton painted a grim picture on voting rights post-SCOTUS ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We’ve seen a sweeping effort across our country to (erect) new obstacles to voting, often under cover of addressing a phantom epidemic of election fraud,\" she said. She called out as especially egregious the \u003ca href=\"http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/07/about-those-free-voter-id-cards/\" target=\"_blank\">Texas voter ID\u003c/a> measure and a new \u003ca href=\"http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/13/black-woman-who-voted-under-jim-crow-could-be-blocked-under-n-c-voting-law/\" target=\"_blank\">North Carolina law\u003c/a>, which she called a \"greatest hits of voter suppression.\" (The Justice Department is \u003ca href=\"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/holder-doj-to-battle-restrictive-voting-laws-starting-in-texas/\" target=\"_blank\">suing over the Texas law\u003c/a> and the League of Women Voters and other groups have \u003ca href=\"http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-12/north-carolina-sued-over-early-voting-law-by-women-s-group-1\" target=\"_blank\">filed suit over the North Carolina law\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I07e-aUuK6Y\" target=\"_blank\">You can watch Clinton's address on voting laws here\u003c/a> ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I07e-aUuK6Y]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "106668 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=106668",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/08/13/video-hillary-clinton-paints-grim-picture-on-voting-rights/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": true,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 320,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 9
},
"modified": 1398475394,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "In June, the U.S. Supreme Court voided a key part of the Voting Rights Act. A month later, the New York Times framed what happened afterward this way ... State officials across the South are aggressively moving ahead with new laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls after the Supreme Court decision striking",
"title": "Video: Hillary Clinton Paints Grim Picture on Voting Rights | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Video: Hillary Clinton Paints Grim Picture on Voting Rights",
"datePublished": "2013-08-13T14:32:36-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-25T18:23:14-07:00",
"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": "video-hillary-clinton-paints-grim-picture-on-voting-rights",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/08/13/hillary-clinton-voting-rights/",
"path": "/news/106668/video-hillary-clinton-paints-grim-picture-on-voting-rights",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_106735\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/08/13/hillary-clinton-voting-rights/attachment/176425074/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-106735\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-106735 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/08/176425074-300x210.jpg\" alt=\"176425074\" width=\"300\" height=\"210\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greets attendees after speaking during the 2013 America Bar Association (ABA) annual meeting on August 12, 2013 in San Francisco. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In June, the U.S. \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/25/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-2/\" target=\"_blank\">Supreme Court voided a key part of the Voting Rights Act\u003c/a>. A month later, the New York Times framed what happened afterward this way ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>State officials across the South are aggressively moving ahead with new laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls after the Supreme Court decision striking down a portion of the Voting Rights Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Republicans who control state legislatures throughout the region say such laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. But such fraud is extremely rare, and Democrats are concerned that the proposed changes will make it harder for many poor voters and members of minorities — who tend to vote Democratic — to cast their ballots in states that once discriminated against black voters with poll taxes and literacy tests. \u003ca href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/politics/after-Supreme-Court-ruling-states-rush-to-enact-voting-laws.html?pagewanted=all\" target=\"_blank\">Full article\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>One Democrat who potentially has a lot to lose from suppressed voter turnout is Hillary Clinton, considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination -- should she choose to run. In San Francisco to address the American Bar Association Monday, Clinton painted a grim picture on voting rights post-SCOTUS ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"We’ve seen a sweeping effort across our country to (erect) new obstacles to voting, often under cover of addressing a phantom epidemic of election fraud,\" she said. She called out as especially egregious the \u003ca href=\"http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/07/about-those-free-voter-id-cards/\" target=\"_blank\">Texas voter ID\u003c/a> measure and a new \u003ca href=\"http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/13/black-woman-who-voted-under-jim-crow-could-be-blocked-under-n-c-voting-law/\" target=\"_blank\">North Carolina law\u003c/a>, which she called a \"greatest hits of voter suppression.\" (The Justice Department is \u003ca href=\"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/holder-doj-to-battle-restrictive-voting-laws-starting-in-texas/\" target=\"_blank\">suing over the Texas law\u003c/a> and the League of Women Voters and other groups have \u003ca href=\"http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-12/north-carolina-sued-over-early-voting-law-by-women-s-group-1\" target=\"_blank\">filed suit over the North Carolina law\u003c/a>.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I07e-aUuK6Y\" target=\"_blank\">You can watch Clinton's address on voting laws here\u003c/a> ...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutube'>\n \u003cspan class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__embedYoutubeInside'>\n \u003ciframe\n loading='lazy'\n class='utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__youtubeShortcode__youtubePlayer'\n type='text/html'\n src='//www.youtube.com/embed/I07e-aUuK6Y'\n title='//www.youtube.com/embed/I07e-aUuK6Y'\n allowfullscreen='true'\n style='border:0;'>\u003c/iframe>\n \u003c/span>\n \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\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/106668/video-hillary-clinton-paints-grim-picture-on-voting-rights",
"authors": [
"80"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_1866",
"news_932",
"news_4711"
],
"featImg": "news_106735",
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101441": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101441",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101441",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372288061000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372288061,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down",
"title": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101442\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 540px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/rs5301_124-sfi/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101442\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101442 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5301_124-sfi.jpg\" alt=\"RS5301_124-sfi\" width=\"540\" height=\"360\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Crispin Hollings proposes marriage to Luis Casillas, who accepts, at San Francisco City Hall today, where people gathered to watch the decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA come in. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Carolyn Clark, Senior Communications Manager at Yahoo, reports that a number of search terms have been spiking at the giant portal related to the Supreme Court rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Searches past 7 days ending June 25\u003c/strong> (breakout refers to a term that is gaining interest and had little to no interest during the previous time period):\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Gay marriage up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>SCOTUS up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 decision 2013 (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage license up 9 percent, Marriage certificate 18 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Liberals Supreme Court (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality sign (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Save Your Marriage (breakout)\u003c!--more-->\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Most searched Justices in the past 7 days:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003col start=\"1\">\n\u003cli>Clarence Thomas\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Antonin Scalia\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>John Roberts\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Sonia Sotomayor\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ol>\n\u003cp>The gender breakdown on those searching about DOMA on Yahoo over the past seven days, is 49 percent female and 51 percent male.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The following specific search terms are among those spiking today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[Scotus]\u003cbr>\n[Prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[proposition 8 california]\u003cbr>\n[prop 8 dissents]\u003cbr>\n[Scotus ruling on prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[scotusblog]\u003cbr>\n[same-sex marriage]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality symbol]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[supreme court decision doma prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[justice samuel alito]\u003cbr>\n[benefits of married couples]\u003cbr>\n[scotus acronym]\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101491\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/googlescreen-640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101491\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101491 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/googlescreen-640.jpg\" alt=\"googlescreen-640\" width=\"640\" height=\"400\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Search terms related to same sex rmarriage trending on Google today. (Google)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meanwhile, at Google, spokesperson Roya Soleimani reports that the following search terms were trending between 9:30 a.m. – 2:30 pm ET today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Supreme Court gay marriage\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>5th Ammendment\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>What is DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage Equality\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Edith Windsor\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>US Supreme Court Ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>HRC\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On Google+, the hashtags #equalrights and #EQUALITYFORALL are trending right now on G+,\"Soleimani added.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "101441 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=101441",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 297,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1372288229,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Carolyn Clark, Senior Communications Manager at Yahoo, reports that a number of search terms have been spiking at the giant portal related to the Supreme Court rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA Searches past 7 days ending June 25 (breakout refers to a term that is gaining interest and had little to no interest during",
"title": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Yahoo and Google See Same-Sex Marriage Searches Spike As Rulings Come Down",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T16:07:41-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-26T16:10:29-07:00",
"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": "yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/101441/",
"path": "/news/101441/yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101442\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 540px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/rs5301_124-sfi/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101442\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101442 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5301_124-sfi.jpg\" alt=\"RS5301_124-sfi\" width=\"540\" height=\"360\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Crispin Hollings proposes marriage to Luis Casillas, who accepts, at San Francisco City Hall today, where people gathered to watch the decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA come in. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Carolyn Clark, Senior Communications Manager at Yahoo, reports that a number of search terms have been spiking at the giant portal related to the Supreme Court rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Searches past 7 days ending June 25\u003c/strong> (breakout refers to a term that is gaining interest and had little to no interest during the previous time period):\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>Gay marriage up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>SCOTUS up 37 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 decision 2013 (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage license up 9 percent, Marriage certificate 18 percent\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Liberals Supreme Court (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage equality sign (breakout)\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Save Your Marriage (breakout)\u003c!--more-->\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Most searched Justices in the past 7 days:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003col start=\"1\">\n\u003cli>Clarence Thomas\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Antonin Scalia\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>John Roberts\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Sonia Sotomayor\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ol>\n\u003cp>The gender breakdown on those searching about DOMA on Yahoo over the past seven days, is 49 percent female and 51 percent male.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>The following specific search terms are among those spiking today:\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>\n\u003cp>[Scotus]\u003cbr>\n[Prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[proposition 8 california]\u003cbr>\n[prop 8 dissents]\u003cbr>\n[Scotus ruling on prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[scotusblog]\u003cbr>\n[same-sex marriage]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality symbol]\u003cbr>\n[marriage equality sign]\u003cbr>\n[supreme court decision doma prop 8]\u003cbr>\n[justice samuel alito]\u003cbr>\n[benefits of married couples]\u003cbr>\n[scotus acronym]\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101491\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 640px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/26/101441/googlescreen-640/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-101491\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-101491 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/googlescreen-640.jpg\" alt=\"googlescreen-640\" width=\"640\" height=\"400\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Search terms related to same sex rmarriage trending on Google today. (Google)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Meanwhile, at Google, spokesperson Roya Soleimani reports that the following search terms were trending between 9:30 a.m. – 2:30 pm ET today:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Supreme Court gay marriage\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Prop 8 ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>5th Ammendment\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>What is DOMA\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Marriage Equality\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>Edith Windsor\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>US Supreme Court Ruling\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>HRC\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“On Google+, the hashtags #equalrights and #EQUALITYFORALL are trending right now on G+,\"Soleimani added.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/101441/yahoo-and-google-see-same-sex-marriage-searches-spike-as-rulings-come-down",
"authors": [
"223"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_101301": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_101301",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "101301",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372264414000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372264414,
"format": "aside",
"title": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"headTitle": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101342\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101342\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/5290_transform-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco's CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco’s CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Thousands of people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Francisco City Hall and in homes nationwide for long-awaited rulings on same-sex marriage this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While many people celebrated the Supreme Court overturning a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act and paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, others called it a travesty. Now, Californians are waiting to find out when same-sex marriages will resume.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-in-marriage\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 109,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 4
},
"modified": 1685487560,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Thousands of people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Francisco City Hall and in homes nationwide for long-awaited rulings on same-sex marriage this morning. While many people celebrated the Supreme Court overturning a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act and paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California,",
"title": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Cheers and Jeers as the Supreme Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriage in California",
"datePublished": "2013-06-26T09:33:34-07:00",
"dateModified": "2023-05-30T15:59:20-07:00",
"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": "cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/26/cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-ca/",
"templateType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/101301/cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_101342\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-101342\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/5290_transform-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco's CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Thousands of people crammed into San Francisco’s CIty Hall before the rulings. (Deborah Svoboda/KQED)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Thousands of people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Francisco City Hall and in homes nationwide for long-awaited rulings on same-sex marriage this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While many people celebrated the Supreme Court overturning a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act and paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, others called it a travesty. Now, Californians are waiting to find out when same-sex marriages will resume.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>http://storify.com/kqednews/supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-in-marriage\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/101301/cheers-and-jeers-as-the-supreme-court-clears-way-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_38",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_100852": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_100852",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "100852",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1372106272000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1372106272,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92121\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-92121\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\" alt=\"People rally in front of the California Supreme Court Building after arguments were heard for and against Proposition 8 March 5, 2009 in San Francisco. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 gather in front of the California Supreme Court in San Francisco after arguments were heard for and against the measure. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Tuesday, Jun 25\u003c/strong>: The court is \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">expected to issue rulings on both Proposition 8 and DOMA\u003c/a> tomorrow around 7 a.m. PT.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Previous posts\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 7:30 a.m. \u003c/strong>The wait continues. Five rulings were released today, none of which was one of the same-sex marriage cases. The court did, however, rule on \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/\" target=\"_blank\">Fisher\u003c/a>, the big affirmative action case, sending it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/supreme-court-affirmative-action/\" target=\"_blank\">back to the lower court\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also agreed to hear a challenge on recess appointments by the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTUS has added tomorrow, Tuesday, as an extra opinion-release day\u003c/strong>. Six undecided cases remain.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>While you wait on tomorrow's action, here are four \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/what-happens-after-prop-8-ruling\" target=\"_blank\">possible legal scenarios around the Prop. 8 ruling\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court could affirm the 9th Circuit decision that invalidated Prop. 8's constitutionality.\u003c/strong> Such a ruling would legalize same-sex marriage in California. It could potentially go beyond California and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could dismiss the case by ruling that the petition for review should never have been granted.\u003c/strong> This would leave the 9th Circuit Court's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as the final binding decision. This ruling, however, was narrowly defined and would likely pertain solely to California.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could hold that the Prop. 8 backers lack standing under the federal law to appeal.\u003c/strong> This would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision, leaving \u003ca title=\"Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\">U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>'s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as final, making same-sex marriage legal in California. However, this would leave open the possibility that Prop. 8 supporters could challenge whether that ruling applies statewide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could reverse the 9th Circuit, upholding Prop. 8 as valid.\u003c/strong> This would mean that same-sex marriage would continue to be illegal in California, unless another state proposition overturns Prop. 8.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal analyst Vikram Amar \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer earlier this month\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog also has a good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/waiting-on-proposition-8-and-doma-decisions-in-plain-english/#more-165587\" target=\"_blank\">analysis\u003c/a> of both the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that polls have shown a remarkable swing in favor of same-sex marriage since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008. So even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that California's ban is upheld -- a ballot initiative in 2014 could well overturn the law. Last week, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Calif-may-act-if-court-upholds-Prop-8-4611357.php\" target=\"_blank\">Senate may act to place a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot \u003c/a>should same-sex marriages remain illegal in the state. Such a measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for it to be placed before voters. LGBT advocates could also place a measure on the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "100852 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=100852",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 660,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 14
},
"modified": 1372180863,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Tuesday, Jun 25: The court is expected to issue rulings on both Proposition 8 and DOMA tomorrow around 7 a.m. PT. Previous posts Update 7:30 a.m. The wait continues. Five rulings were released today, none of which was one of the same-sex marriage cases. The court did, however, rule on Fisher, the big affirmative",
"title": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Supreme Court Decisions on Prop. 8 or DOMA Today; More Opinions Coming Tuesday",
"datePublished": "2013-06-24T13:37:52-07:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-25T10:21:03-07:00",
"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": "is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/23/prop-8-supreme-court/",
"path": "/news/100852/is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92121\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"size-full wp-image-92121\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS4280_85264891.jpg\" alt=\"People rally in front of the California Supreme Court Building after arguments were heard for and against Proposition 8 March 5, 2009 in San Francisco. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 gather in front of the California Supreme Court in San Francisco after arguments were heard for and against the measure. (David Paul Morris/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Tuesday, Jun 25\u003c/strong>: The court is \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/prop-8-supreme-court/\" target=\"_blank\">expected to issue rulings on both Proposition 8 and DOMA\u003c/a> tomorrow around 7 a.m. PT.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Previous posts\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update 7:30 a.m. \u003c/strong>The wait continues. Five rulings were released today, none of which was one of the same-sex marriage cases. The court did, however, rule on \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/\" target=\"_blank\">Fisher\u003c/a>, the big affirmative action case, sending it \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/24/supreme-court-affirmative-action/\" target=\"_blank\">back to the lower court\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also agreed to hear a challenge on recess appointments by the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>SCOTUS has added tomorrow, Tuesday, as an extra opinion-release day\u003c/strong>. Six undecided cases remain.\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>While you wait on tomorrow's action, here are four \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/19/what-happens-after-prop-8-ruling\" target=\"_blank\">possible legal scenarios around the Prop. 8 ruling\u003c/a>:\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The U.S. Supreme Court could affirm the 9th Circuit decision that invalidated Prop. 8's constitutionality.\u003c/strong> Such a ruling would legalize same-sex marriage in California. It could potentially go beyond California and legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could dismiss the case by ruling that the petition for review should never have been granted.\u003c/strong> This would leave the 9th Circuit Court's decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as the final binding decision. This ruling, however, was narrowly defined and would likely pertain solely to California.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could hold that the Prop. 8 backers lack standing under the federal law to appeal.\u003c/strong> This would vacate the 9th Circuit's decision, leaving \u003ca title=\"Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker: Courts' Change on Same-Sex Marriage Was 'Utterly Unimaginable'\" href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/11/vaughn-walker\">U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker\u003c/a>'s ruling that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional as final, making same-sex marriage legal in California. However, this would leave open the possibility that Prop. 8 supporters could challenge whether that ruling applies statewide.\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>The court could reverse the 9th Circuit, upholding Prop. 8 as valid.\u003c/strong> This would mean that same-sex marriage would continue to be illegal in California, unless another state proposition overturns Prop. 8.\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Legal analyst Vikram Amar \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/\" target=\"_blank\">told KQED's Scott Shafer earlier this month\u003c/a> that a broad decision declaring a fundamental nationwide right to same-sex marriage is highly unlikely. “It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said. He noted that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SCOTUSblog also has a good \u003ca href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/waiting-on-proposition-8-and-doma-decisions-in-plain-english/#more-165587\" target=\"_blank\">analysis\u003c/a> of both the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It should also be noted that polls have shown a remarkable swing in favor of same-sex marriage since voters approved Prop. 8 in 2008. So even in a worst-case scenario for those who support same-sex marriage -- that California's ban is upheld -- a ballot initiative in 2014 could well overturn the law. Last week, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the \u003ca href=\"http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Calif-may-act-if-court-upholds-Prop-8-4611357.php\" target=\"_blank\">Senate may act to place a repeal of Prop. 8 on the ballot \u003c/a>should same-sex marriages remain illegal in the state. Such a measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for it to be placed before voters. LGBT advocates could also place a measure on the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>DOMA\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>DOMA is a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman. It prevents those who are in same-sex marriages from receiving a host of federal benefits, such as the ability to file a joint tax return. In the case before the court, a widow was forced to pay $363,000 in inheritance taxes after her female spouse died, a liability she would not have incurred if she'd been married to a man. A federal appeals court ruled that provision of DOMA was unconstitutional. Another provision, requiring states to recognize only opposite-sex marriages performed in other states, is not at issue here.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/100852/is-today-the-day-supreme-court-prop-8-ruling-could-come-at-7-a-m-pt",
"authors": [
"236"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_99826": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_99826",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "99826",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1371214831000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1371214831,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "99826 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=99826",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/14/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 686,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 19
},
"modified": 1398733213,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word? When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms. “The case",
"title": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Analysis: Prop. 8 Case Unlikely to Result in Broad Right to Same-Sex Marriage",
"datePublished": "2013-06-14T06:00:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:13-07:00",
"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-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"status": "publish",
"customPermalink": "2013/06/13/supreme-court-may-have-the-final-word-on-prop-8/",
"path": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Nearly five years after voters passed Proposition 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of California's ban on same-sex marriage. But will that be the final word?\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_99836\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-99836 \" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/06/RS5062_Supreme-Court-Justices-2010-scr-300x181.jpg\" alt=\"Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"181\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Front row (L-R): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back Row (L-R): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>When two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prop. 8, their attorney, Theodore Olson, described the issue in sweeping terms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“The case we filed is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican,” Olson said. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the summer of 2010, federal judge Vaughn Walker agreed, issuing a landmark decision \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-whats-next/\" target=\"_blank\">declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional\u003c/a> -- saying there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples a license to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://blogs.kqed.org/prop8/2012/02/07/appeals-court-upholds-vaughns-decision/\" target=\"_blank\">9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld\u003c/a> Walker's ruling in February 2012 but narrowed it considerably, saying it applied only to California, not the entire country. In the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in.\u003c!--more-->\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>UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar calls a broad decision declaring a fundamental, nationwide right to same-sex marriage highly unlikely.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Amar said, noting that when bans on interracial marriage were struck down in 1967, only 16 states had such laws -- compared with 35 that now ban gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Since Prop. 8 passed, 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. And John Eastman, an attorney for the National Organization for Marriage -- supporters of Prop. 8 -- hopes that discourages the high court from intervening.\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">“It's very rare for the court to invalidate the laws of two-thirds or three-quarters of the states,” Vik Amar\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>“Americans across the country are grappling with an intense policy debate,” Eastman said. “And there's nothing specifically in the Constitution that decides that debate one way or the other. And the Supreme Court ought to recognize that and let it play out.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> in March, there seemed to be little appetite – even among the most liberal justices -- for a momentous decision in support of gay marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are two ways for the court to avoid that legal question altogether. They could simply dismiss the case, allowing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision to stand. (In fact, during \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a>, Justice Anthony Kennedy mused, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”)\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Or, more likely, Amar said, the court will declare that Prop. 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If the case is decided on standing grounds, the thing we should focus on right away is what, if anything, the court says about the follow-on process,” Amar said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In other words, how broadly does Judge Walker's decision apply? Not broadly at all, said Prop. 8 attorney Andy Pugno.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“If we didn't have standing, then there was no one to defend Proposition 8,” Pugno argued. “And in a case like that you can't declare a statute unconsitutional. The best you can do is grant the relief that was asked for, and that's for the two couples.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But opponents of Prop. 8 argue that Gov. Jerry Brown would likely instruct county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, same-sex weddings would begin again by the end of July.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Even if the measure is upheld by the Supreme Court, the question is sure to be back on the ballot next year. Polls show well over 50 percent of California voters are now supporting same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/99826/analysis-prop-8-case-unlikely-to-result-in-broad-right-to-marry",
"authors": [
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932",
"news_1172"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92727": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92727",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92727",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364431990000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364431990,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained",
"title": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments for almost two hours on the federal Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday morning. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions centered around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92735\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/visitors-an-employees-arrive-at-the-us-s/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92735\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92735\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images) \u003ccite>(Paul J. Richards/AFP-Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big takeaway from this has always been: The court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[At question is] whether [BLAG] is an appropriate representative of the Congress that passed the DOMA. Let’s say that the House of Representatives had not stepped in to defend DOMA, say some conservative pro-marriage group did. Now, it is Windsor against the United States, the United States is not defending, the House, the Senate, no one in the government is defending. But someone who likes the DOMA steps in and says, \"I’ll defend it.\" We clearly would not allow a court to resolve that case on the merits because we would not have confidence that that outside group that wants to defend DOMA would do the right kind of job, given that they are not a valid representative of the people and the Congress that passed the DOMA.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Can you tell me where the authorization is here? I know that there is a statute that gives the Senate specifically authorization to intervene and that there was consideration of extending that right to the House. But the appointment of BLAG is strange to me, because it's not in a statute, it's in a House rule.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So where -- how does that constitute anything other than a private agreement among some Senators, the House leadership? And where -- from where do they derive the right, the statutory right, to take on the power of representing the House in items outside of the House? I know they control the procedures within the House, but that's a very different step from saying that they can decide who or to create standing in some way, prudential or otherwise, Article III or otherwise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Sotomayor, I can point you to two places. One is the House rules that are pursuant to the rulemaking authority and approved by the institution. They're approved in every Congress. Rule 2.8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What other House Rule creates the power of the majority leaders to represent the House outside of the functions of the House?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Can the President Choose Not to Uphold the Law?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Historically [how it works for] the president and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., is that when a law is passed by Congress, even over a presidential veto, and is later challenged in court as being unconstitutional, that the executive branch of the United States views it as its job to defend what Congress has done and it will provide a vigorous defense in court. Unless the law is patently unconstitutional and no reasonable person could think there is a defense. So the president over the years has personally defended all sorts of laws he thinks are unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Obama did not follow that general historical practice here, and hasn’t fully explained why this is an appropriate exception. That’s what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia were frustrated by, because then a statute can die on the vine simply because the President is not enforcing it and yet no court has ever weighed in to invalidate it because there’s no case in which a case could do so. That gives a lot of power and discretion to the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> is a case in which Congress passed a law that basically limited the president’s authority and enhanced Congress’s authority. Congress used that authority to deport a man named Mr. Chadha. He objected to this law on the ground that it … was a usurpation of authority by Congress. So, Chadha sued the federal government, the INS who was going to deport him and the president, through the attorney general, agreed with Mr. Chadha…So when the case was litigated you have the same situation you have in Prop. 8 and the DOMA, you have the executive branch on the side of the challenger rather than on the side of defending the legislative enactment. So the question is whether if \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> was a case that was appropriate for Supreme Court resolution, why shouldn’t the DOMA case be similar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But there are some important distinctions, so if it wants to [the court] can get rid of the case on standing grounds, and dooesn't have to overrule the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> case, it just has to limit the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, it's not just - it's not unusual. It's totally unprecedented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: Well, it's totally unprecedented in one respect, Your Honor. If you look at Chadha -- okay, the second point I'd make. Let me make one point at the outset, though, which is that whether it's totally unusual or largely unusual, I grant you that it doesn't happen. But the reason it doesn't happen is because -- I wouldn't confuse a numerator with a denominator. This set of circumstances just doesn't arise very often.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, it's true that when this set of circumstances -\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: It has not arisen very often in the past, because in the past, when I was at the Office of Legal Counsel, there was an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel which says that the Attorney General will defend the laws of the United States, except in two circumstances: Number one, where the basis for the alleged unconstitutionality has to do with presidential powers. When the presidential powers are involved, he's the lawyer for the President. So he can say, we think the statute's unconstitutional, I won't defend it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The second situation is where no possible rational argument could be made in defense of it. Now, neither of those situations exists here. And I'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the Attorney General can simply decide, yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it's not so unconstitutional that I'm not willing to enforce it, if we're in this new world, I -- I don't want these cases like this to come before this Court all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I think they will come all the time if that's -- if that's -- if that's the new regime in the Justice Department that we're dealing with.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I would have thought your answer would be that the Executive's obligation to execute the law includes the obligation to execute the law consistent with the Constitution. And if he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how are you aggrieved? \"Aggrieved\" means that you are deprived of your legal rights. And you don't think that you've been deprived of your legal rights because your rights -- your obligations under the Constitution supercede DOMA, and you haven't been deprived of anything that you're entitled to under the Constitution. So how are you aggrieved?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: I guess we'd -- I'd subscribe to the aggrievement analysis that the Court made in Chadha at pages 929 to 931 of its opinion. And what the Court said is this: \"When an agency of the United States is a party to a case in which an act of Congress that it administers is held unconstitutional, it is an aggrieved party. The agency's status as an aggrieved party is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.\" That description is on all fours with the circumstances of this case.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Federalism\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Would the federal government be stepping on the toes of the states by treating same-sex couples as married, even when those couples were not treated as married in that state? Those are the kinds of questions that really probe this federalism rationale. How much is marriage an exclusive domain of the states? And is the federal government really out of its arena? To say that the federal government always has to defer to the states, or generally defer to the states in these marital arenas would be a big step, but at least is a step that does not resolve the meta-question here about whether the 40-odd states that ban same-sex marriage would have to change what they’re doing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think -- I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, it applies to over what, 1,100 Federal laws, I think we are saying. So it's not -- it's -- it's -- I think there is quite a bit to your argument that if the tax deduction case, which is specific, whether or not if Congress has the power it can exercise it for the reason that it wants, that it likes some marriage it does like, I suppose it can do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the Federal Government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You're saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Equal Protection\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar\u003c/strong>: The equal protection idea in the Constitution, and it’s in the 14\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Amendment and it’s also in the Fifth Amendment, is not a command that government always treat everybody identically, because that would make no sense. Every law that government passes treats some persons or things than other persons or things. Every law does that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question is what kind of basis for differentiating people is valid. It’s certainly OK to treat criminals differently than non-criminals; the former go to jail, the latter do not. It’s also certainly not OK to treat ethnic minorities differently than whites without a really strong justification. So why is it OK to treat criminals different than non-criminals, but not OK to treat blacks differently than whites?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Those are the big questions in equal protection and how do they apply to a group like gays and lesbians. Are they more like racial minorities or are they more properly analogous to other groups in society that don’t benefit from any special judicial protection? So the equal protection idea requires the courts figure out which kinds of groups should not be treated differently based on some group characteristic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp> GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, with respect to Section 3 of DOMA, the problem is an equal protection problem from the point of view of the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes, but, General, surely the question of what the Federal interests are and whether those Federal interests should take account of the historic State prerogatives in this area is relevant to the equal protection inquiry?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: It's central to the inquiry, Justice Kagan. I completely agree with that point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Oh, so it would be central to the inquiry if Congress went the other way, too?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, the difference is what Section 3 does is impose this exclusion from Federal benefits on a class that has undeniably been subject to a history of terrible discrimination on the basis of –\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that. That's your equal protection argument. It's not very responsive to my concern I'm trying to get an answer to. You don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this, right?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92727 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92727",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 2424,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 47
},
"modified": 1398733227,
"excerpt": "For almost two hours Supreme Court justices heard arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions were around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92735\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\" style=\"padding:10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a> \r\n\r\nThe justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\r\n\u003ch3>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\u003c/h3>\r\n\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big take-away from this has always been, the court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\r\n\r\nThe basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "For almost two hours Supreme Court justices heard arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions were around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\r\nUC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\r\nStanding\r\n\r\nAmar: If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big take-away from this has always been, the court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\r\n\r\nThe basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.",
"title": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "DOMA Oral Arguments Explained",
"datePublished": "2013-03-27T17:53:10-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:27-07:00",
"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": "doma-oral-arguments-explained",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92727/doma-oral-arguments-explained",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments for almost two hours on the federal Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday morning. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions centered around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92735\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/doma-oral-arguments-explained/visitors-an-employees-arrive-at-the-us-s/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92735\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92735\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/RS2263_SupremeCourt100311-300x205.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"205\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supreme Court (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images) \u003ccite>(Paul J. Richards/AFP-Getty Images)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big takeaway from this has always been: The court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.\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>The basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[At question is] whether [BLAG] is an appropriate representative of the Congress that passed the DOMA. Let’s say that the House of Representatives had not stepped in to defend DOMA, say some conservative pro-marriage group did. Now, it is Windsor against the United States, the United States is not defending, the House, the Senate, no one in the government is defending. But someone who likes the DOMA steps in and says, \"I’ll defend it.\" We clearly would not allow a court to resolve that case on the merits because we would not have confidence that that outside group that wants to defend DOMA would do the right kind of job, given that they are not a valid representative of the people and the Congress that passed the DOMA.\u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Can you tell me where the authorization is here? I know that there is a statute that gives the Senate specifically authorization to intervene and that there was consideration of extending that right to the House. But the appointment of BLAG is strange to me, because it's not in a statute, it's in a House rule.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So where -- how does that constitute anything other than a private agreement among some Senators, the House leadership? And where -- from where do they derive the right, the statutory right, to take on the power of representing the House in items outside of the House? I know they control the procedures within the House, but that's a very different step from saying that they can decide who or to create standing in some way, prudential or otherwise, Article III or otherwise.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Sotomayor, I can point you to two places. One is the House rules that are pursuant to the rulemaking authority and approved by the institution. They're approved in every Congress. Rule 2.8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What other House Rule creates the power of the majority leaders to represent the House outside of the functions of the House?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Can the President Choose Not to Uphold the Law?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Historically [how it works for] the president and the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., is that when a law is passed by Congress, even over a presidential veto, and is later challenged in court as being unconstitutional, that the executive branch of the United States views it as its job to defend what Congress has done and it will provide a vigorous defense in court. Unless the law is patently unconstitutional and no reasonable person could think there is a defense. So the president over the years has personally defended all sorts of laws he thinks are unconstitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>President Obama did not follow that general historical practice here, and hasn’t fully explained why this is an appropriate exception. That’s what Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia were frustrated by, because then a statute can die on the vine simply because the President is not enforcing it and yet no court has ever weighed in to invalidate it because there’s no case in which a case could do so. That gives a lot of power and discretion to the president.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> is a case in which Congress passed a law that basically limited the president’s authority and enhanced Congress’s authority. Congress used that authority to deport a man named Mr. Chadha. He objected to this law on the ground that it … was a usurpation of authority by Congress. So, Chadha sued the federal government, the INS who was going to deport him and the president, through the attorney general, agreed with Mr. Chadha…So when the case was litigated you have the same situation you have in Prop. 8 and the DOMA, you have the executive branch on the side of the challenger rather than on the side of defending the legislative enactment. So the question is whether if \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> was a case that was appropriate for Supreme Court resolution, why shouldn’t the DOMA case be similar.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But there are some important distinctions, so if it wants to [the court] can get rid of the case on standing grounds, and dooesn't have to overrule the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> case, it just has to limit the \u003cem>Chadha\u003c/em> ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, it's not just - it's not unusual. It's totally unprecedented.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: Well, it's totally unprecedented in one respect, Your Honor. If you look at Chadha -- okay, the second point I'd make. Let me make one point at the outset, though, which is that whether it's totally unusual or largely unusual, I grant you that it doesn't happen. But the reason it doesn't happen is because -- I wouldn't confuse a numerator with a denominator. This set of circumstances just doesn't arise very often.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Now, it's true that when this set of circumstances -\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: It has not arisen very often in the past, because in the past, when I was at the Office of Legal Counsel, there was an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel which says that the Attorney General will defend the laws of the United States, except in two circumstances: Number one, where the basis for the alleged unconstitutionality has to do with presidential powers. When the presidential powers are involved, he's the lawyer for the President. So he can say, we think the statute's unconstitutional, I won't defend it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The second situation is where no possible rational argument could be made in defense of it. Now, neither of those situations exists here. And I'm wondering if we're living in this new world where the Attorney General can simply decide, yeah, it's unconstitutional, but it's not so unconstitutional that I'm not willing to enforce it, if we're in this new world, I -- I don't want these cases like this to come before this Court all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And I think they will come all the time if that's -- if that's -- if that's the new regime in the Justice Department that we're dealing with.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I would have thought your answer would be that the Executive's obligation to execute the law includes the obligation to execute the law consistent with the Constitution. And if he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how are you aggrieved? \"Aggrieved\" means that you are deprived of your legal rights. And you don't think that you've been deprived of your legal rights because your rights -- your obligations under the Constitution supercede DOMA, and you haven't been deprived of anything that you're entitled to under the Constitution. So how are you aggrieved?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. SRINIVASAN: I guess we'd -- I'd subscribe to the aggrievement analysis that the Court made in Chadha at pages 929 to 931 of its opinion. And what the Court said is this: \"When an agency of the United States is a party to a case in which an act of Congress that it administers is held unconstitutional, it is an aggrieved party. The agency's status as an aggrieved party is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.\" That description is on all fours with the circumstances of this case.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Federalism\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> Would the federal government be stepping on the toes of the states by treating same-sex couples as married, even when those couples were not treated as married in that state? Those are the kinds of questions that really probe this federalism rationale. How much is marriage an exclusive domain of the states? And is the federal government really out of its arena? To say that the federal government always has to defer to the states, or generally defer to the states in these marital arenas would be a big step, but at least is a step that does not resolve the meta-question here about whether the 40-odd states that ban same-sex marriage would have to change what they’re doing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think -- I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, it applies to over what, 1,100 Federal laws, I think we are saying. So it's not -- it's -- it's -- I think there is quite a bit to your argument that if the tax deduction case, which is specific, whether or not if Congress has the power it can exercise it for the reason that it wants, that it likes some marriage it does like, I suppose it can do that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the Federal Government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You're saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Equal Protection\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar\u003c/strong>: The equal protection idea in the Constitution, and it’s in the 14\u003csup>th\u003c/sup> Amendment and it’s also in the Fifth Amendment, is not a command that government always treat everybody identically, because that would make no sense. Every law that government passes treats some persons or things than other persons or things. Every law does that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The question is what kind of basis for differentiating people is valid. It’s certainly OK to treat criminals differently than non-criminals; the former go to jail, the latter do not. It’s also certainly not OK to treat ethnic minorities differently than whites without a really strong justification. So why is it OK to treat criminals different than non-criminals, but not OK to treat blacks differently than whites?\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>Those are the big questions in equal protection and how do they apply to a group like gays and lesbians. Are they more like racial minorities or are they more properly analogous to other groups in society that don’t benefit from any special judicial protection? So the equal protection idea requires the courts figure out which kinds of groups should not be treated differently based on some group characteristic.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp> GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, with respect to Section 3 of DOMA, the problem is an equal protection problem from the point of view of the United States.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Yes, but, General, surely the question of what the Federal interests are and whether those Federal interests should take account of the historic State prerogatives in this area is relevant to the equal protection inquiry?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: It's central to the inquiry, Justice Kagan. I completely agree with that point.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Oh, so it would be central to the inquiry if Congress went the other way, too?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, the difference is what Section 3 does is impose this exclusion from Federal benefits on a class that has undeniably been subject to a history of terrible discrimination on the basis of –\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that. That's your equal protection argument. It's not very responsive to my concern I'm trying to get an answer to. You don't think federalism concerns come into play at all in this, right?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92727/doma-oral-arguments-explained",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_3672",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_2725",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92552": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92552",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92552",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364346107000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364346107,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained",
"title": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92585\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/us-chief-justice-john-roberts-c-front-2/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92585\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92585\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/912367741-300x206.jpg\" alt=\"File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"206\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Only Justice Scalia seemed to ask questions that supported the standing of the sponsors. But Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan and Justice Roberts and then, at the end, Justice Kennedy, when he said there was a substantial question over standing. All of them intimated that this may not be an appropriate vehicle for federal courts to weigh in, because the sponsors don’t really have a direct tie to the people and voters of California as to be able to step in their shoes, and speak for the state, when the attorney general and the governor declined to defend.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is at least a very good chance that this case will get resolved on standing grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the liberal justices, as I said, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, asked a lot of questions that suggested that they were skeptical of the sponsor standing. That is a signal to me that they would rather let Prop. 8 die a California-specific death on standing grounds, because if there’s no standing, then basically the Ninth Circuit decision is wiped out, and the plaintiffs will win a narrow victory in the district court. But, not necessarily [a win] that spills over to affect people from any other state, and maybe not even other same-sex couples in California, at least not for the moment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. Maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chief Justice. Your Honor, the official proponents of Proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this Court as representatives of the people and the State of California to defend the validity of a measure that they brought forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\nMR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, the Court has not done that. But the Court has never had before it a clear expression from a unanimous State's high court that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: -- could -- could the State assign to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Justice Kagan, that would be a -- a very tough question. It's -- it's by no means the question before the Court, because -- because it isn't any citizen, it's -- it is the -- it is the official proponents that have a specific and -- and carefully detailed --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just -- if you would on the hypothetical: Could a State just assign to\u003cbr>\nanybody the ability to do this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I think it very well might. It very well might be able to decide that any citizen could step forward and represent the interests of the State and the people in that State...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you're -- you're doing so in a -- in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the State goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on -- on standing. I just wonder if -- if the case was properly granted.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Defining Marriage\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> When it comes to the merits, I think there was more of a full-throated rejection of the plaintiffs' challenge to Prop. 8 by the conservative justices, especially Justice Scalia, than there was a full-throated embrace of a national right to same sex-marriage by the liberals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s true that Justice Kagan asked (Yes on 8 Attorney) Chuck Cooper some difficult questions about regulation of people who are over 55 years of age and how does that relate to procreation, etc. But I didn’t hear the liberals kind of explain a national equal protection right, which they may embrace, but they didn’t use oral argument to put it out there the way Justice Scalia and other conservative justices kind of belittled the claim brought by the plaintiffs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of the things the arguments show -- this procreation defense of bans on same-sex marriage -- doesn’t really work that easily. It lends itself to a lot of easy, hypothetical rejoinders. And I think that the conservative justices who think that Prop. 8 is appropriate for the people of California to have passed, they in their questions, recast the issue focusing not just narrowly on procreation, but on caution more generally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? Look, you said that the problem is marriage; that it is an institution that furthers procreation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: And the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>- Laughter -\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Is Marriage a Fundamental Right?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> was a 1967 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. It kept coming up because the challengers to Prop. 8 have really evoked \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> and the interracial marriage setting as an analogy: That just as it was legitimate for the court to tell states that they could not ban marriages between races, so, too, it’s appropriate to tell states that they cannot ban marriages between gays and lesbians.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The people who oppose the challenge, the defenders of Prop. 8, Chuck Cooper, they really think that \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> is more a case about race than it was about marriage. They also would note that in 1967, when the Supreme Court decided \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em>, there were only about a dozen or so states that continued to prohibit interracial marriage. Whereas 40 states or so continue to prohibit same-sex marriage. So the backdrop against which the Supreme Court nationalized a right to interracial marriage in 1967 might be considered different than today’s backdrop. Something the court kind of hinted at a number of times when they talked about whether this issue should percolate a little in the states before the Supreme Court weighs in, in a definitive fashion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: The label \"marriage\" means something. Even our opponents --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're -- all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. You could have said in the \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> case, what -- you can't get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the -- marriage has a status, recognition, support, and you -- if you read the test, you know --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Why Now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I think the best defense of Prop. 8, if there is a good defense, is that states have the right to be cautious when they’re tampering with an institution that’s 2,000 or more years old. Justice Kennedy talked about how long marriage has remained the way it is. Justice Alito said, you know, same sex-marriage is a newer institution than cell phones or the Internet, and you’re telling us we have to nationalize it right now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: You want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on -- of same-sex marriage, the potential -- the effects of Proposition 8. But what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the -- the concept of -- of same-sex marriage. The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a -- a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>When Did Same-Sex Marriage Become Illegal?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> The rhetorical point Justice Scalia is trying to make is that if we would say that it did not violate the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage 50 years ago, and it does so today, isn’t it odd that the meaning of the Constitution, whose words haven’t changed since 1868, would evolve?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(Scalia) is what we call an originalist and textualist. He wants to interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by reference to what it meant in 1868. Not by reference to modern notions of social meaning and social science.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -- as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: Because the case that's before you --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: -- if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: -- in -- the case that's before you today, California decided -- the citizens of California decided, after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California, and then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So -- so your case -- your case would be different if Proposition 8 was enacted into law prior to the California Supreme Court decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: I would make -- I would make the -- also would make the -- that distinguishes it in one respect. But also -- also -- I would also make the argument, Mr. Chief Justice, that we are -- this -- marriage is a fundamental right and we are making a classification based upon a status of individuals, which this Court has repeatedly decided that gays and lesbians are defined by their status. There is no question about that.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92552 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92552",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 2366,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 57
},
"modified": 1398733230,
"excerpt": "After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\n\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92585\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/files/2013/03/912367741-300x206.jpg\" alt=\"File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"206\" style=\"padding:10px 10px 10px 10px\" align=\"left\" />\u003c/a>\r\n\r\nThe \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\r\n\r\nThe questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe oral arguments were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\r\n\r\nThe questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\r\n\r\nStanding\r\n\r\nAmar: I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.",
"title": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained",
"datePublished": "2013-03-26T18:01:47-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:30-07:00",
"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": "proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92552/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_92585\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\" style=\"max-width: 300px\">\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained/us-chief-justice-john-roberts-c-front-2/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-92585\">\u003cimg class=\"size-medium wp-image-92585\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/03/912367741-300x206.jpg\" alt=\"File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\" width=\"300\" height=\"206\">\u003c/a>\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">File photo of Supreme Court justices. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/\" target=\"_blank\">oral arguments\u003c/a> were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Standing\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.\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>Only Justice Scalia seemed to ask questions that supported the standing of the sponsors. But Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan and Justice Roberts and then, at the end, Justice Kennedy, when he said there was a substantial question over standing. All of them intimated that this may not be an appropriate vehicle for federal courts to weigh in, because the sponsors don’t really have a direct tie to the people and voters of California as to be able to step in their shoes, and speak for the state, when the attorney general and the governor declined to defend.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There is at least a very good chance that this case will get resolved on standing grounds.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Interestingly, the liberal justices, as I said, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, asked a lot of questions that suggested that they were skeptical of the sponsor standing. That is a signal to me that they would rather let Prop. 8 die a California-specific death on standing grounds, because if there’s no standing, then basically the Ninth Circuit decision is wiped out, and the plaintiffs will win a narrow victory in the district court. But, not necessarily [a win] that spills over to affect people from any other state, and maybe not even other same-sex couples in California, at least not for the moment.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Cooper, we have jurisdictional and merits issues here. Maybe it'd be best if you could begin with the standing issue.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chief Justice. Your Honor, the official proponents of Proposition 8, the initiative, have standing to defend that measure before this Court as representatives of the people and the State of California to defend the validity of a measure that they brought forward.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE GINSBURG: Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?\u003cbr>\n\u003c!--more-->\u003cbr>\nMR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, the Court has not done that. But the Court has never had before it a clear expression from a unanimous State's high court that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: -- could -- could the State assign to any citizen the rights to defend a judgment of this kind?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Justice Kagan, that would be a -- a very tough question. It's -- it's by no means the question before the Court, because -- because it isn't any citizen, it's -- it is the -- it is the official proponents that have a specific and -- and carefully detailed --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, I just -- if you would on the hypothetical: Could a State just assign to\u003cbr>\nanybody the ability to do this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I think it very well might. It very well might be able to decide that any citizen could step forward and represent the interests of the State and the people in that State...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>...\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you're -- you're doing so in a -- in a case where the opinion is very narrow. Basically that once the State goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70 percent of the way, and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on -- on standing. I just wonder if -- if the case was properly granted.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Defining Marriage\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> When it comes to the merits, I think there was more of a full-throated rejection of the plaintiffs' challenge to Prop. 8 by the conservative justices, especially Justice Scalia, than there was a full-throated embrace of a national right to same sex-marriage by the liberals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s true that Justice Kagan asked (Yes on 8 Attorney) Chuck Cooper some difficult questions about regulation of people who are over 55 years of age and how does that relate to procreation, etc. But I didn’t hear the liberals kind of explain a national equal protection right, which they may embrace, but they didn’t use oral argument to put it out there the way Justice Scalia and other conservative justices kind of belittled the claim brought by the plaintiffs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of the things the arguments show -- this procreation defense of bans on same-sex marriage -- doesn’t really work that easily. It lends itself to a lot of easy, hypothetical rejoinders. And I think that the conservative justices who think that Prop. 8 is appropriate for the people of California to have passed, they in their questions, recast the issue focusing not just narrowly on procreation, but on caution more generally.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? Look, you said that the problem is marriage; that it is an institution that furthers procreation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE BREYER: And the reason there was adoption, but that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>- Laughter -\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Is Marriage a Fundamental Right?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> was a 1967 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. It kept coming up because the challengers to Prop. 8 have really evoked \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> and the interracial marriage setting as an analogy: That just as it was legitimate for the court to tell states that they could not ban marriages between races, so, too, it’s appropriate to tell states that they cannot ban marriages between gays and lesbians.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The people who oppose the challenge, the defenders of Prop. 8, Chuck Cooper, they really think that \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> is more a case about race than it was about marriage. They also would note that in 1967, when the Supreme Court decided \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em>, there were only about a dozen or so states that continued to prohibit interracial marriage. Whereas 40 states or so continue to prohibit same-sex marriage. So the backdrop against which the Supreme Court nationalized a right to interracial marriage in 1967 might be considered different than today’s backdrop. Something the court kind of hinted at a number of times when they talked about whether this issue should percolate a little in the states before the Supreme Court weighs in, in a definitive fashion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: The label \"marriage\" means something. Even our opponents --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that's it seems to me what the -- what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're -- all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. There are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. You could have said in the \u003cem>Loving\u003c/em> case, what -- you can't get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the -- marriage has a status, recognition, support, and you -- if you read the test, you know --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: How do we know -- how do we know that that's the reason, or a necessary part of the reason, that we've recognized marriage as a fundamental right? That's -- you've emphasized that and you've said, well, it's because of the emotional commitment. Maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Why Now?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> I think the best defense of Prop. 8, if there is a good defense, is that states have the right to be cautious when they’re tampering with an institution that’s 2,000 or more years old. Justice Kennedy talked about how long marriage has remained the way it is. Justice Alito said, you know, same sex-marriage is a newer institution than cell phones or the Internet, and you’re telling us we have to nationalize it right now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE ALITO: You want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on -- of same-sex marriage, the potential -- the effects of Proposition 8. But what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the -- the concept of -- of same-sex marriage. The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a -- a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>When Did Same-Sex Marriage Become Illegal?\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amar:\u003c/strong> The rhetorical point Justice Scalia is trying to make is that if we would say that it did not violate the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage 50 years ago, and it does so today, isn’t it odd that the meaning of the Constitution, whose words haven’t changed since 1868, would evolve?\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>(Scalia) is what we call an originalist and textualist. He wants to interpret the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by reference to what it meant in 1868. Not by reference to modern notions of social meaning and social science.\u003c/p>\n\u003cblockquote>\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -- as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: Because the case that's before you --\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>JUSTICE SCALIA: -- if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: -- in -- the case that's before you today, California decided -- the citizens of California decided, after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California, and then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So -- so your case -- your case would be different if Proposition 8 was enacted into law prior to the California Supreme Court decision?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>MR. OLSON: I would make -- I would make the -- also would make the -- that distinguishes it in one respect. But also -- also -- I would also make the argument, Mr. Chief Justice, that we are -- this -- marriage is a fundamental right and we are making a classification based upon a status of individuals, which this Court has repeatedly decided that gays and lesbians are defined by their status. There is no question about that.\u003c/p>\u003c/blockquote>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92552/proposition-8-oral-arguments-explained",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_92453": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_92453",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "92453",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1364317179000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1364317179,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments",
"title": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>Supreme Court justices set a challenging tone early during the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 Tuesday morning. The Justices questioned whether \u003ca href=\"#standing\">citizens have the right to defend a proposition\u003c/a> if the state will not, whether either side could \u003ca href=\"#harm\">prove legal harm\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"#when\">when same-sex marriage became illegal\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Listen\u003c/strong> to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85027489\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Read\u003c/strong> the transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132467543/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"\" target=\"_blank\">Learn more\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> about what some of the exchanges meant.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\">DOMA Supreme Court Hearing Audio, Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "92453 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=92453",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/26/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 120,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 10
},
"modified": 1398733231,
"excerpt": "Listen to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court this morning.\r\n\r\n\u003ciframe width=\"100%\" height=\"166\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85027489\">\u003c/iframe>\r\n\r\nRead the transcript:\r\n\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132467543/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\" frameborder=\"0\">\u003c/iframe>\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">\u003cstrong>Read\u003c/strong>\u003c/a> all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.",
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Listen to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court this morning.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRead the transcript:\r\n\r\n\r\nRead all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.",
"title": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments",
"datePublished": "2013-03-26T09:59:39-07:00",
"dateModified": "2014-04-28T18:00:31-07:00",
"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": "audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/92453/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>Supreme Court justices set a challenging tone early during the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 Tuesday morning. The Justices questioned whether \u003ca href=\"#standing\">citizens have the right to defend a proposition\u003c/a> if the state will not, whether either side could \u003ca href=\"#harm\">prove legal harm\u003c/a> and \u003ca href=\"#when\">when same-sex marriage became illegal\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Listen\u003c/strong> to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F85027489\" frameborder=\"no\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"166\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Read\u003c/strong> the transcript:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ciframe src=\"http://www.scribd.com/embeds/132467543/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" width=\"100%\" height=\"600\">\u003c/iframe>\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>The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. \u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"\" target=\"_blank\">Learn more\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> about what some of the exchanges meant.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/27/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments/\">DOMA Supreme Court Hearing Audio, Transcript\u003c/a>\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>\u003ca href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DOMPRP8.aspx\">Read\u003c/a>\u003c/strong> all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/92453/audio-transcript-of-supreme-court-proposition-8-oral-arguments",
"authors": [
"199"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188"
],
"tags": [
"news_152",
"news_82",
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_201",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
},
"news_81508": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_81508",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "81508",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1354307720000
]
},
"parent": 0,
"labelTerm": {
"site": "news",
"term": 6944
},
"blocks": [],
"publishDate": 1354307720,
"format": "aside",
"disqusTitle": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"title": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"headTitle": "News Fix | KQED News",
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-81554\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 10, 2013: \u003c/strong>The court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\">did not release\u003c/a> its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was no announcement about the court's plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week's time. That will be their last meeting until January. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">\u003cstrong>Analysis: SCOTUS and Prop 8: End of Road or Next Chapter?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">\u003cstrong>More Prop 8 coverage and legal analysis\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there's no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They'll be the villains in the historical narrative,\" said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don't think there is,\" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,\" Clement said in court papers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center — whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor's is the other.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.\n\n\u003c/p>\n",
"disqusIdentifier": "81508 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/?p=81508",
"disqusUrl": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/30/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8/",
"stats": {
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"hasAudio": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"wordCount": 1274,
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"paragraphCount": 32
},
"modified": 1370875669,
"excerpt": null,
"headData": {
"twImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twDescription": "",
"description": "Update Jun 10, 2013: The court did not release its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June. (AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later",
"title": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases | KQED",
"ogDescription": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "No Decision Today From Supreme Court on Prop 8 or DOMA Cases",
"datePublished": "2012-11-30T12:35:20-08:00",
"dateModified": "2013-06-10T07:47:49-07:00",
"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": "no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"status": "publish",
"path": "/news/81508/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8.jpg\">\u003cimg class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-81554\" title=\"Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8\" src=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2012/11/scotusprop8-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\">\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Update Jun 10, 2013: \u003c/strong>The court \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/06/10/prop-8-supreme-court-ruling/\">did not release\u003c/a> its opinions on either case today. The decisions are expected by the end of June.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>(AP) Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>There was no announcement about the court's plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week's time. That will be their last meeting until January. \u003c!--more-->\u003c/p>\n\u003caside class=\"pullquote alignleft\">\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/11/28/u-s-supreme-court-and-proposition-8-end-of-the-road-or-next-chapter/\">\u003cstrong>Analysis: SCOTUS and Prop 8: End of Road or Next Chapter?\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli>\u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/prop-8/\">\u003cstrong>More Prop 8 coverage and legal analysis\u003c/strong>\u003c/a>\u003c/li>\u003c/ul>\u003c/aside>\n\u003cp>Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.\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>Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there's no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They'll be the villains in the historical narrative,\" said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"The question is whether there's a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don't think there is,\" said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\"DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,\" Clement said in court papers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center — whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor's is the other.\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>Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.\n\n\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/81508/no-decision-today-from-scotus-on-prop-8",
"authors": [
"237"
],
"programs": [
"news_6944"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8"
],
"tags": [
"news_126",
"news_322",
"news_932"
],
"label": "news_6944"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"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",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"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",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"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",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"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",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"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",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"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",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"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/"
}
},
"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": "KQED Spooked",
"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",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"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",
"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": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?tag=supreme-court": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 72,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 90,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_10530405",
"news_10356105",
"news_10343037",
"news_106668",
"news_101441",
"news_101301",
"news_100852",
"news_99826",
"news_92727",
"news_92552",
"news_92453",
"news_81508"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"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"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"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"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"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_tag_supreme-court": {
"isLoading": true
},
"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_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_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_38": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_38",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "38",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 58,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco"
},
"news_545": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_545",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "545",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco Police Department",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Police Department Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 554,
"slug": "san-francisco-police-department",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/san-francisco-police-department"
},
"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_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_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_1866": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1866",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1866",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Hillary Clinton",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Hillary Clinton Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1881,
"slug": "hillary-clinton",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/hillary-clinton"
},
"news_4711": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4711",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4711",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Voting Rights Act",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Voting Rights Act Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4730,
"slug": "voting-rights-act",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/voting-rights-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_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_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_201": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_201",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "201",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "SCOTUS",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "SCOTUS Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 209,
"slug": "scotus",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/scotus"
},
"news_152": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_152",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "152",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Government",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Government Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 159,
"slug": "government",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/government"
},
"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_2725": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_2725",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "2725",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2743,
"slug": "same-sex",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex"
},
"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"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"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": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
