New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Posts Tagged ‘ACLU’

Pennsylvania’s Next: U.S. District Judge Orders State to Allow and Recognize Same-Sex Marriages, and State Complies!

Posted on: May 20th, 2014 by Art Leonard No Comments

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed to the federal district court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, by President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled on May 20 in Whitewood v. Wolf that Pennsylvania’s statutes banning same-sex marriages in the state or recognition of same-sex marriages formed outside the state violate the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Judge Jones issued an order declaring both statutes unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the state from enforcing them. Neither his opinion nor his order mentioned any stay, but it seemed likely that Governor Tom Corbett would seek a stay, first from Judge Jones and then, if one was not forthcoming, from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Philadelphia. But Governor Corbett surprised everybody by waiting one day and then announcing he would not appeal the ruling, making Pennsylvania the 19th marriage equality state. Meanwhile, shortly after Judge Jones’s ruling was announced, same-sex couples began getting marriage licenses.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed this lawsuit last July on behalf of what Judge Jones described as “eleven courageous lesbian and gay couples, one widow, and two teenage children of one of the aforesaid couples.” Some of the couples are seeking marriage licenses, others are seeking recognition of their out-of-state marriages, the teenagers complain about the deprivations they suffer from their parents not being married, and the widow, who married her late partner out of state, complains about not being recognized as a surviving spouse. One of the state’s defenses to this lawsuit was that the plaintiffs had failed to show any injury for the court to redress, a nonsensical position that Judge Jones dispatched efficiently. He found that the “stigmatizing harms” imposed by the statutes, which were passed in 1996 in response to a marriage equality lawsuit in Hawaii, were “cognizable” as a matter of law, and, additionally, that “plaintiffs suffer a multitude of daily harms, for instance, in the areas of child-rearing, healthcare, taxation, and end-of-life planning.” The state’s other main defense was that this case is precluded by the Supreme Court’s 1972 Baker v. Nelson ruling that the issue of same-sex marriage did not raise a “substantial federal question.” All of the recent marriage equality decisions have rejected this argument, pointing to the significant developments in American constitutional law since 1972, not least last year’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, to conclude that exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage now presents a very substantial federal question.

Judge Jones found the Pennsylvania statutes unconstitutional on two separate constitutional theories: due process and equal protection.

The due process theory rests on Supreme Court decisions finding that the “right to marry” is a fundamental right, guaranteed to each individual. Judge Jones rejected the state’s argument that because “the United States Supreme Court has never recognized that the fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry a person of one’s choice,” the state’s marriage laws did not violate the plaintiffs’ due process rights. After briefly summarizing the Supreme Court’s important marriage decisions, Judge Jones wrote, “this Court is not only moved by the logic that the fundamental right to marry is a personal right to be exercised by the individual, but also rejects Defendants’ contention that concepts of history and tradition dictate that same-sex marriage is excluded from the fundamental right to marry. The right Plaintiffs seek to exercise is not a new right,” he continued, “but is rather a right that these individuals have always been guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” He went on to find that this right encompassed both the right to marry and the right to remain married after crossing a state line, so the due process theory served to invalidate both Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage and its ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.

Turning to equal protection, the judge noted that one branch of equal protection jurisprudence would apply strict scrutiny to any law that discriminates regarding a fundamental right, and nobody contends that same-sex marriage bans would survive such strict scrutiny. However, setting that issue aside, he proceeded to analyze whether discrimination because of sexual orientation requires heightened scrutiny. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has never ruled on the question, and neither has the Supreme Court, at least directly. Judge Jones noted that several of the other courts that have issued marriage equality rulings, in addition to the 9th Circuit in a recent jury selection case, have held that heightened scrutiny is appropriate for sexual orientation claims, and that a review of the Supreme Court’s gay rights decisions suggests that the Court has been using a more demanding standard of judicial review than the traditional deferential rational basis test. After reviewing the factors that courts generally consider in deciding whether a particular form of discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny review, Jones concluded that this was the appropriate level of review.

Consequently, presuming the ban to be unconstitutional, Jones considered whether there was an “important governmental objective” to support the ban. Since the state had been arguing in support of using the deferential rational basis test, its arguments fell quite short. Jones identified “promotion of procreation, child-rearing and the well-being of children” and “tradition” as the only interests the state was proposing. “Significantly,” he wrote, “Defendants claim only that the objectives are ‘legitimate,’ advancing no argument that the interests are ‘important’ state interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny. Also, Defendants do not explain the relationship between the classification and the governmental objectives served; much less do they provide an exceedingly persuasive justification. In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential review and go no further. Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no argument engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated under this more-searching standard.”

Like the other trial judges ruling in marriage equality cases over the past several months, Judge Jones rose to an eloquent conclusion. “The issue we resolve today is a divisive one,” he wrote. “Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not makes its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of ‘separate but equal.'” After citing the Supreme Court’s key ruling against racial segregation, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), he continued, “In the sixty years since Brown was decided, ‘separate’ has thankfully faded into history, and only ‘equal’ remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage. We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.”

Pennsylvania’s marriage statutes require a three-day process to apply for and receive a marriage license. Thus, unless individual couples can secure some sort of waiver of this waiting period, it is possible that speedy action by the state to obtain a stay could avoid what happened in Utah, Arkansas and Michigan, where same-sex marriages took place before the state was able to secure a stay pending appeal. In those states, one could apply for a license, obtain it immediately, and then quickly have a marriage ceremony, but Pennsylvania’s laws do not routinely provide such speed. Judge Jones’ decision to issue his opinion on a Tuesday, rather than right before a weekend, made it more likely that the state might secure a stay before marriages could take place.

Taking together both the rulings on the right to marry and those rulings that just dealt with marriage recognition, Judge Jones’s decision was the fourteenth consecutive ruling by a state or federal court since last June’s U.S. Supreme Court DOMA decision to rule in favor of LGB plaintiffs seeking marriage rights or recognition. Since then no court has rejected such a claim, although many of the trial court decisions are “on hold” due to stays pending appeal. In New Mexico and New Jersey, the states’ highest courts last year agreed with their trial courts, and in Oregon, yesterday, where the state signified in advance that it would not appeal a marriage equality ruling, same-sex marriages could quickly begin taking place. Each new decision now cites the lengthening list of prior decisions, the sheer weight of which is building to a daunting body of precedent, even though viewed individually trial court rulings may have little precedential weight. We still await the first federal appellate ruling that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees to gay people the same individual right to marry the partner of their choice. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (in Denver) and the 4th Circuit (in Richmond) have heard arguments on cases arising from Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, and other circuits will hear arguments soon from other states. While there may be more federal trial court decisions in the months ahead, with scores of cases pending in all but three of the remaining states that ban same-sex marriage, the next truly significant development will be the first court of appeals ruling, which could come at any time.

Note added a few hours after posting this: Judges can grant individual waivers of the three-day waiting period, and I understand that some judges have already granted waivers and licenses have been issued to some couples. So no matter how fast the state is in requesting a stay, some couples will be getting married before that can happen.

Federal Court Says Utah Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages That Were Celebrated Before the Supreme Court Stay

Posted on: May 19th, 2014 by Art Leonard No Comments

U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball ruled on May 19 that the state of Utah must recognize the same-sex marriages that were performed in the state from December 20 to January 6. Another federal district judge, Robert Shelby, ruled on December 20 in Kitchen v. Herbert that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Judge Shelby, and subsequently the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, refused to stay that decision pending appeal and more than 1300 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court responded affirmatively to the state’s request for a stay pending appeal. After the Supreme Court issued its stay, Governor Gary Herbert declared that the same-sex marriages that had been performed were “on hold” as the stay had “revived” the state’s marriage ban. In this ruling in Evans v. State of Utah, Judge Kimball found that the state is barred by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment from putting legally valid marriages “on hold,” but temporarily stayed his own ruling for 21 days to give the state an opportunity to appeal to the 10th Circuit.

There was some confusion on the part of the state government after Judge Shelby issued his injunction against the state’s marriage ban. Some clerks began issuing licenses quickly, while others hesitated, awaiting instructions from the state government. Finally, upon the attorney general’s advice that clerks who refused to issue licenses could be held in contempt by the federal district court, many clerks fell into line and issued more than 1300 licenses, as state officials announced that such marriages were valid. However, when the Supreme Court issued its stay and the governor declared that those marriages were now “on hold” because the state could not recognize them under the “revived” laws, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of several recently-married couples, seeking an injunction requiring the court to recognize the marriages.

The result was to interfere with the ongoing efforts by recently-married same-sex couples to assert their rights, including several adoption proceedings that were thrown into limbo as Utah trial judges were uncertain how to proceed. Indeed, the state is facing the threat of a contempt proceeding from one trial judge who issued an adoption order that state officials are refusing to honor by issuing an appropriate birth certificate, and there are already questions pending at the Utah Supreme Court about the status of these marriages. The court has temporarily stayed various adoption proceedings while it decides whether the state must recognize the marriages. It will be interesting to see what weight it accords to the federal district court’s ruling on vested rights, which depends on that court’s reading of Utah precedents.

The ACLU filed its lawsuit in state court, but the state removed the suit to federal district court, and opposed the plaintiffs’ motion to certify to the Utah Supreme Court the question whether couples legally married under Utah law have vested rights in their marriage that could not be taken away by the state without a compelling interest. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that as a matter of law their vested rights were being abridged by the state for no valid reason. The state, in response, argued that the Supreme Court’s stay had a retroactive effect, restoring the marriage ban going back to December 20, 2013, thus rendering the marriages invalid. And, after having opposed the plaintiff’s motion to certify the question to the Utah Supreme Court, the state reversed course and urged Judge Kimball to certify virtually the same question, but Judge Kimball refused to do so, finding that Utah precedents are clear on the question of vested marriage rights.

Judge Kimball found that the state’s arguments were contradicted by well-established principles of Utah law as well as the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Judge Kimball placed heavily reliance on the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the somewhat analogous situation created when California voters adopted Proposition 8 in November 2008 after thousands of same-sex couples had married in the five months after that court’s marriage equality decision went into effect in June 2008. In that case, Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court said that those who had married at a time when same-sex marriage was legal had vested rights in their marital status and everything that went with that status, which could not be taken away by a subsequent constitutional amendment. Kimball found that Utah cases dating back to the 19th century had also taken the position that once a couple was legally married, they had vested marriage rights protected against retroactive rejection by the state.

Utah’s attorneys argued that the California situation with Proposition 8 was distinguishable. The Utah licenses were issued in compliance with an injunction by a single federal trial judge that the state had promptly appealed. Thus, they said, it was not in that sense a final order in the case, unlike the California Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, which could only be overturned by a state constitutional amendment. (That amendment was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court in the famous Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, which went into effect last June after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the court’s ruling, which had not been appealed by state officials.) Judge Kimball was not persuaded by this distinction, and he also pointed out the strong bias against retroactive application of new legal rulings. The Supreme Court did not issue any explanation about the impact of the stay it issued on January 6, and Judge Kimball pointed out that such an action would not be deemed to have any sort of retroactive effect unless the Supreme Court had voiced such an intention.

He also found that there were strong Utah judicial precedents concerning vested rights in marriage, holding that such rights vest when the marriage was performed. According to Judge Kimball, from the time Judge Shelby issued his injunction until the time the Supreme Court stayed the injunction pending appeal, it was legal for same-sex couples to marry in Utah, and as soon as any such marriage was performed, the couple had vested rights in the marriage that could not be abridged by the state. He pointed out that this was consistent with the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling, U.S. v. Windsor. “The Windsor Court held that divesting ‘married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life’ violates due process,” he wrote.

Judge Kimball went through the wording of the Utah constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans, and found that all of those provisions were stated in the present tense and made no mention of retroactive application. Thus, if one construed the Supreme Court stay to have “revived” those provisions while the case was on appeal, there was no basis to apply them retroactively.

“The State argues that application of Utah’s previously existing marriage bans after the Supreme Court’s Stay Order is not retroactive application of the bans because the laws were enacted long before the Plaintiffs entered into their marriages,” he wrote. “However, this argument completely ignores the change in the law that occurred. The marriage bans became legal nullities when the Kitchen decision was issued and were not reinstated until the Stay Order. In addition, the State’s argument fails to recognize that Utah law defines a retroactive application of a law as an application that ‘takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws in respect to transactions or considerations already past.’ Under this definition, the State’s application of the marriage bans to place Plaintiffs’ marriages ‘on hold,’ necessarily ‘takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing law.” Judge Kimball concluded that even if Judge Shelby’s decision is eventually reversed and the injunction dissolved, the marriages that were performed would remain valid under the vested rights theory and the strong policy against retroactive application of law.

After analyzing the factors applied in the 10th Circuit to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued, Judge Kimball found that all the factors had been satisfied. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated a clear and unequivocal likelihood of success on the merits of their deprivation of federal due process claim,” he wrote, and he found that they had also established the necessary irreparable harm if their marriages were not recognized. On the other hand, he found, “The State has no legitimate interest in depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights,” and he also found “no harm to the State based on an inability to apply the marriage bans retroactively.” As to the public interest, “the court agrees with Plaintiffs that the public is well served by having certainty about the status of Plaintiffs’ marriages.”

The state’s lawyers had asked the court to stay its preliminary injunction so that the state could appeal it to the 10th Circuit. Judge Kimball concluded that “the State has not met its burden of establishing the factors required for a stay pending appeal,” but decided to exercise discretion to grant to the state a “limited 21-day stay during which it may pursue an emergency Motion to Stay with the Tenth Circuit.” His explanation: “The court recognizes the irreparable harms facing Plaintiffs every day. However, the court finds some benefit in allowing the Tenth Circuit to review whether to stay the injunction prior to implementation of the injunction. Therefore, notwithstanding the many factors weighing against a stay, the court, in its discretion, grants the State a temporary 21-day stay.” However, unless the 10th Circuit responds favorably to the state’s request, Judge Kimball’s order will go into effect requiring recognition of the marriages.

The plaintiffs were represented at the court’s hearing on the preliminary injunction motion by attorneys Erik Strindberg, Joshua A. Block and John Mejia.

Judge Kimball was appointed to the federal district court by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and took senior status and a reduced caseload in November 2009 upon reaching age 70. He teaches at Brigham Young University Law School, and is an active member of the Mormon Church, in which he has held various leadership positions.

Supreme Court: Clearing Up the Cert Backlog After the DOMA and Prop 8 Decisions

Posted on: June 27th, 2013 by Art Leonard No Comments

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Windsor, affirming the 2nd Circuit and holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the 5th Amendment, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, holding that the initiative proponents of Proposition 8, who had been allowed to intervene in its defense at trial, lacked standing to appeal the district court’s ruling.   The decisions will go into effect after the Court issues its mandate, which is normally 25 days after decision day, in order to give the losing party a shot at filing a motion for rehearing. 

One could argue that there is no “losing party” in Windsor, since neither Edie Windsor nor the U.S. Government has any beef with the Court’s ruling.  The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) may have a beef with it, but I think any motion for rehearing that they might file would be quickly dismissed, inasmuch as Justice Kennedy’s opinion does not rule on whether they had standing to participate in the case as a full party, and none of the dissenters argued that they have standing, either.  In Hollingsworth, the mandate would send the case back to the 9th Circuit, which would then lift its stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s Order, which enjoins California officials from enforcing Proposition 8.  At that point, same-sex marriages would resume in California.  Governor Brown has already authorized a memorandum that was sent out to County Clerks instructing them the state believes that Walker’s Order is binding throughout the state, and that they are to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the stay is lifted.

Today, June 27, the Supreme Court addressed the backlog of cert petitions that have piled up in the wake of the same-sex marriage cases, so here is the rundown from the Court’s announcements this morning:

1 – The Windsor case.  The court had three cert petitions in the Windsor case, one filed by Robbie Kaplan and the ACLU on behalf of Edith Windsor, the others filed by the U.S. Goverment and BLAG.  The Court granted the government’s petition, which is why the case is called U.S. v. Windsor in the Supreme Court.  This morning, the Court denied certiorari in the petitions filed by Windsor, No. 12-63, and BLAG, No. 12-785.  (BLAG didn’t file its petition until after the 2nd Circuit had ruled, and in fact the Court granted the government’s petition before BLAG filed its petition.)

2 – The 1st Circuit Gill/Massachusetts case.  The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision holding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment, but rejecting the state of Massachusetts’ argument that DOMA violated the 10th Amendment by overriding the prerogatives of the state.  BLAG filed a petition for certiorari from the ruling against the private plaintiffs, represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and that petition was denied this morning in No. 12-13.  The government also filed a petition for certiorari, in the name of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which was the lead defendant in the case, and that petition was denied today, No. 12-15.  The state of Massachusetts also filed a petition, seeking to vindicate its federalism claim.  The Court denied that petition as well, No. 12-97. 

Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Windsor made something out of the federalism argument, although I think Chief Justice Roberts was strategically misrepresenting the majority opinion when he wrote in dissent that the main theme of the majority opinion was federalism.  It was not.  The ruling was premised on the 5th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection requirements, although Kennedy did discuss the federalism aspects of the case as one of the factors that required the Court to give “careful consideration” to this constitutional challenge.  BLAG did not file a petition in this case. 

The Court noted that Justice Kagan did not participate in the consideration or decision on these petitions on the 1st Circuit case, presumably because as Solicitor General she had participated in the Justice Department’s internal discussions about the District Court proceedings and the appeal to the 1st Circuit.   It is likely that the reason the Court decided to take the Windsor case instead of this case was so that a full bench could participate, as both cases presented the identical issues under the 5th Amendment.  The original district court complaint in Windsor was filed after Justice Kagan took the bench, so she was not involved in the Justice Department’s conduct of the litigation and did not feel any need to recuse herself.

3 – The Golinski case.  Lambda Legal represents Karen Golinski, an employee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who was denied health insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse after they married in California in 2008 prior to the passage of Proposition 8.  Golinski won a ruling from a federal district judge within the 9th Circuit that Section 3 is unconstitutional, and the government had filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to bypass the 9th Circuit and bring the case directly to the Supreme Court.  This morning, the Court denied the petition, No. 12-16.  In light of the ruling in Windsor, federal court employees legally married to their same-sex partners in California will clearly be eligible to participate in the group insurance plan for the federal courts on the same-basis as employees married to different-sex couples, since California recognizes the marriages that were performed in 2008 prior to the enactment of Prop 8, by virtue of a California Supreme Court decision issued in 2009 in response to a challenge to the passage of Prop 8.  Still to be sorted out, but likely, is that federal court employees who work in states that don’t recognize their same-sex marriages will be similarly-entitled, but stay tuned on that issue. 

5 – The Pedersen case.  After having won their DOMA case in Massachusetts, GLAD decided to venture into the New England portion of the 2nd Circuit by filing a similar case in Connecticut, where they won a ruling from the district court and then petitioned the Supreme Court to take the case directly, bypassing the 2nd Circuit.  This seemed to make sense, as the 2nd Circuit was focused on the Windsor case from New York, and it seemed likely that all the pending DOMA cases were in a position to contend for Supreme Court review.  The government also obliged by filing a petition shortly after GLAD had filed.  This morning, the Court dismissed the Pedersen (GLAD) petition, No. 12-231, and the government’s petition, which was filed on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management, No. 12-302.

6 – The Arizona Domestic Partnership Benefits Case.  The Supreme Court also received a petition last summer from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, asking the Court to overturn a preliminary injunction that had been issued by a federal judge in Arizona requiring the state to continue providing health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Arizona state employees while the court considered the merits of Lambda Legal’s claim that the government’s revocation of those benefits violated the 14th Amendment.  The 9th Circuit had affirmed the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief, agreeing with the district judge that plaintiffs had adequately shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury if they were to lose their insurance coverage while the case was being litigated.  This morning, the Court denied the petition in Brewer v. Diaz, No. 12-23.  I think it is most likely this one was denied because the Court would rarely get involved in an interlocutory appeal of a pre-trial order of this type unless it was overwhelmingly eager to get into the substantive legal issues in the case, and yesterday’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, dismissing the Prop 8 appeal on standing grounds, seems to signal that the Court is determined to put off for now the question of how to analyze sexual orientation equal protection claims under the 14th Amendment. 

7 – The Nevada marriage case.   This is the strangest and most “long-shot” petition of those denied this morning.  In Nevada, Lambda Legal is suing for a ruling that the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment is unconstitutional and gay people should be entitled to marry.  The district court allowed the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, which was behind the marriage amendment, to intervene as co-defendants with the state.  The district court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that there is no right under the 14th Amendment for same-sex couples to marry (explicitly disagreeing with Judge Walker’s decision in the Prop 8 case), and the case would next logically go to the 9th Circuit.  But the Coalition filed a cert petition, asking the Supreme Court to take the case directly and affirm the district court.   (Now, this sounds odd in light of the arguments about the U.S. government’s standing in the Windsor case to appeal a ruling with which it agreed, doesn’t it?)  Yesterday’s ruling in Hollingsworth seems to dispose of this one quite easily on standing grounds.  Clearly, the Coalition does not have standing to bring this case to the Supreme Court under the majority opinion’s reasoning in Hollingsworth, especially since the state of Nevada is defending its marriage amendment in court, unlike the state of California in the Prop 8 case, and the state will presumably fight to defend the district court’s ruling in the 9th Circuit.  Anyway, the petition in Coalition v. Sevcik was dismissed this morning, No. 12-689.  The legislature in Nevada has given initial approval to a ballot measure that would repeal the anti-gay marriage amendment and replace it with a marriage amendment that institutes marriage equality in the state.  The proposed amendment will need to be approved again after a new legislature has been elected before it can be placed on the ballot.  

So that clears the decks at the Supreme Court on same-sex couple legal recognition cases for now, unless a motion for rehearing is filed in Windsor or Perry.  The Court rarely grants motions for rehearing, and the likelihood that such a motion would be granted in either of these cases is slight, so a mandate to put the opinions into effect should be issued by the fourth week in July (which has 4-1/2 weeks).