The Court is constrained to point out once again that the instant litigation is not about the wisdom or morality of the death penalty or the tragic suffering of the families and loved ones of those who commit capital crimes. The passions that surround these issues are deep and entirely understandable, but they have little to do with the limited legal question presented here. ... The Court is painfully aware that however it decides a case of this nature, there will be many who disagree profoundly with its decision. The moral and political debate about capital punishment will continue, as it should.

The battle in California over proper lethal injection procedures has been ongoing since 2006 when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [official website], in response to court rulings regarding the postponement of Morales' execution and a virtual moratorium of all executions in the state, ordered [JURIST report] his administration to "correct court-identified deficiencies in California's lethal injection protocol to ensure the death penalty procedure is constitutional." Schwarzenegger submitted a proposal in 2007 [JURIST report] regarding changes to the state's protocol, including authorization to construct a new execution chamber. California's new lethal injection protocol became effective on August 29, 2010.

From a strictly legal perspective, this is an easy case to decide. In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples violated neither due process nor equal protection. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial federal question. This resolution is dispositive. ... In any event, voters and legislatures in forty-one states have affirmatively rejected the notion of same-sex marriage, either by constitutional amendment or legislation, and voters or legislatures in four other states have left in place statutes that plainly assume the opposite-sex definition of marriage. Thus, as in Glucksburg, "[t]he history of the law's treatment of [same-sex marriage] in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. ... That being the case ... the asserted 'right' ... is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause."

Last week, officials for Imperial County, California, announced that the county had submitted its opening brief [JURIST report] in an appeal to overturn the district court decision. District Judge Vaughn Walker denied Imperial's request to intervene in the original suit in August, stating that the request was not timely. Walker has cast doubt on the ability of defendant-intervenors in the suit to appeal the district court decision because they are not original parties to the suit and therefore lack the necessary standing. If the Ninth Circuit allows Imperial to intervene, the court will then determine whether the county has standing to appeal Walker's ruling. The state of California, the original defendant to the suit, has decided not to pursue an appeal. Earlier this month, a judge for California's 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that neither Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown is required to appeal the decision [JURIST report]. In his decision, Walker held that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional under both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause [Cornell LII backgrounders] of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The extent to which class treatment may constitutionally reduce the normal requirements of due process is an important question. National concern over abuse of the class-action device induced Congress to permit removal of most major class actions to federal court, where they will be subject to the significant limitations of the Federal Rules. Federal removal jurisdiction has not been accorded, however, over many class actions in which more than two-thirds of the plaintiff class are citizens of the forum State. Because the class here was drawn to include only residents of Louisiana, this suit typifies the sort of major class action that often will not be removable, and in which the constraints of the Due Process Clause will be the only federal protection.

The companies requested the stay after the Supreme Court of Louisiana refused to hear their appeal from the ruling [text] of the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Philip Morris has faced other class action litigation related to its sales practices. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned class action certification [JURIST report] for a lawsuit brought by "light" cigarette smokers against Philip Morris and other light cigarette makers. The class action, which included anyone who has ever bought light cigarettes since they hit the market in the 1970s, had alleged that tobacco companies used deceptive advertising tactics to mislead smokers in response to growing health concerns over the risks of smoking cigarettes. In September 2006, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York certified the class of 50 million plaintiffs [JURIST report] for the class-action suit. Lawyers estimated that sales of light cigarettes brought tobacco companies between $120 billion and $200 billion in extra sales since 1971.