Judge Orders Feds to Pay Gay Couple

A quick wiki of 'Judge Stephen Reinhardt' will show that he was appointed in 1980 by Jimmy Cater to the 9th Circuit Count of Appeals, in Los Angeles!

The article is slightly inaccurate. Federal Judge Stephen Reinhardt, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, didn't base his decision on California law, which has no influence on Federal law government Federal employees. He based his decision on the Federal Judiciary's EDR plan, adopted by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. The plan"prohibits discrimination based on both sex and sexual orientation." He concluded that Mr. Levenson's rights were violated under the adopted EDR plan. He also considered the effects of DOMA, but wrote in his decision: "Ultimately, I conclude that to provide for the equal treatment of all Judicial Branch employees within the Ninth Circuit, and because any other directive would be unconstitutional, the appropriate remedy in this case is an order requiring the provisions of FEHBA and FEDVIP benefits to Levenson's spouse." You can read the entire decision at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000010082

(cont.) A federal circuit court's ruling remains precedential unless the SCOTUS rules in contrary to it.

First of all, I bet the article is not accurate. Judge Reinhardt is most likely a federal district judge, NOT a 9th Circuit Judge. The appellate courts, which on the federal level includes the 9th Circuit, are panels of judges, NOT a single judge who issues a ruling. Also, the appellate courts decide whether or not the lower court (in the federal system, the district court or, if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the circuit court) acted in accordance with the law - they do NOT provide specific relief for the parties. Finally, precedent works from the top down, NOT the bottom up. In the federal system, the district courts abide by precedent issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, and if SCOTUS hasn't established any precedent, then the circuit court that the district court is under. Now, if Judge Reinhardt's ruling is appealed to the 9th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit Court decides he ruled correctly, then it would be precedential, although it is only binding in the 9th circuit.

Excellent decision. I hope that it holds up on appeal (or that the Obama Administration declines to appeal it).

This is good. US v. Levinson can be used now as precedent because it shows that Prop 8, DOMA, etc., not only are unconstitutional, but also violate California law. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like a good sign. I hope the lawyers on the Olsen team are paying attention. It stands to reason that even if Olsen wins at the district level, that the homophobes will appeal, in which case the Prop 8 case would land in the lap of the 9th circuit court. Using the court's own decision as a precedent can surely help Olsen's case. I know I'm getting ahead of myself here, but this is encouraging. If Olsen can win on both the district and appeals court levels, that gives him great momentum should the case wind up before SCOTUS, and by SCOTUS, I mean Justice Kennedy, since it is basically 4-4-1, that is, he is the swing vote here. Kennedy is conservative in that he acts on precedent but not conservative as in bigoted. The more precedents like this, the better. Small wins like this add up.

Doug, I believe you are correct. If its who I think it is, the guys last name is Berry. While I understand Obama trying to take his time with all the gay rights legislation, with there being so much on his plate, I still get angry when I hear him claiming he has to defend DOMA and other laws in court. He is picking and choosing his battles here because he seems to play with us in his right hand, yet use his left one to make moderates and conservatives happy. Is he for equal rights or not? The man is just confusing me at this point.

isn't the Office of Personell Management headed by a gay man- Obama's 1st and almost only gay staffer?

Bravo to Judge Reinhardt! This is precisely why DOMA needs to be repealed. Even if its a question of states rights (which its not according to the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution), this situation denies those same sex couples in California that are MARRIED equal protection status. This patchwork of laws regarding same sex couples throughout the U.S. cannot continue! It simply wont work.