X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A snowy Monday morning failed to deter nearly 200 hopefuls in line for seats at the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic arguments on same-sex marriage.

The court reported that 175 (some of whom were paid stand-ins) had braved the elements throughout the weekend to enhance their chances of getting into the arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday. About 25 members of the Supreme Court bar (or their surrogates) began standing in line on Friday.

The court has filled all of the press requests that it can accommodate—118—and it will have overflow seating in the public affairs office for about another dozen. The audio of the arguments will be piped in for those journalists.

As with last March’s healthcare arguments, the same-sex marriage cases have attracted international attention. Among the press are reporters from the Guardian, the Irish Times, Voice of Russia, El Pais, several German media outlets and other publications.

"We had more requests than we had seats, but we were able to accommodate most," said Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer.

The justices are releasing same-day audio of the arguments as well as the written transcripts. The court said it will post the audio recordings and the unofficial transcripts as soon as the digital files are available for uploading. The recordings and transcripts should be accessible no later than 1 p.m. on March 26 and 2 p.m. on March 27 through links on the homepage of the court’s website ( www.supremecourt.gov).

Tuesday’s case is Hollingsworth v. Perry in which proponents of California’s ban on same sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, ask whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits California from defining marriage as the union between a man and woman. The court has scheduled one hour of argument in Perry. On Wednesday, the justices will hear U.S. v. Windsor, in which the justices are asked if section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as the union of a man and woman for all federal purposes, violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. That argument has been given 110 minutes.

Marcia Coyle can be contacted at mcoyle@alm.com.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.