“Why does the Indiana attorney general have to be involved in the definition-of-marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court?” It’s a fair question I have been asked since the Supreme Court announced Dec. 7 it would hear two marriage-definition cases, potentially setting the stage for a landmark ruling in June.
Simply put, my legal obligation as attorney for my client, the Indiana legislature, is to defend state laws legislators have passed. Indiana has a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If the Supreme Court were to strike down a similar California law, Proposition 8, as unconstitutional, then it would put Indiana’s statute at risk.
Under our system of justice, both sides in a case must be zealously represented. Although Indiana is not a plaintiff or defendant in either of the cases the Supreme Court will hear, our state and other states have an undeniable interest in asserting each state’s legal authority to define marriage as it sees fit within its borders. That’s why my office, representing Indiana, jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief with 14 other states that urged the Supreme Court to keep the marriage-definition legal authority at the state level. …show more content…
Drafting and joining amicus curiae in support of other states is a routine but essential duty of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, assigned to our solicitor general and funded in advance through our existing budget at no additional expense to
Simply put, my legal obligation as attorney for my client, the Indiana legislature, is to defend state laws legislators have passed. Indiana has a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If the Supreme Court were to strike down a similar California law, Proposition 8, as unconstitutional, then it would put Indiana’s statute at risk.
Under our system of justice, both sides in a case must be zealously represented. Although Indiana is not a plaintiff or defendant in either of the cases the Supreme Court will hear, our state and other states have an undeniable interest in asserting each state’s legal authority to define marriage as it sees fit within its borders. That’s why my office, representing Indiana, jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief with 14 other states that urged the Supreme Court to keep the marriage-definition legal authority at the state level. …show more content…
Drafting and joining amicus curiae in support of other states is a routine but essential duty of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, assigned to our solicitor general and funded in advance through our existing budget at no additional expense to