Fees Mount in Marriage Cases

States ordered to pay up as same-sex bans fall.

, The National Law Journal

   | 3 Comments

States that unsuccessfully ­defended same-sex marriage bans in federal courts are on the hook to pay more than $800,000 in legal fees to the challengers, and requests for millions of dollars more are pending.

This content has been archived.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

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

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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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

What's being said

  • Soul - Founder: Soul University

    Aloha Zoe, thank you for posting this initial summary. I wonder, how might we tally the ‘internal costs‘ already paid by taxpayers. Specifically, any insights on what States have already paid via salaries to elected SAG‘s in proportion to their time spent on defending existing bans?

    SAG salaries - funded by tax payers, are equally applicable to this issue.

  • Herb Spencer

    Fee awards are fine, as Congress intended, but not as the federal judiciary has amended. Specifically, the lodestar and multiplier methods of determining and awarding fees are nowhere set by statute. The courts should find the hourly amount, adjust it downward if it‘s excessive, and leave it at that. Since the federal courts can‘t issue additurs generally, they should be limited to remittiturs here as well. Otherwise, we‘re talking windfalls according to the caprice of any given judge on any given day. That is not in accordance with the rule of law.

  • joey joe joe

    Yet another example of republicans not living up to their claims of being the party of fiscal responsibility. They‘re more than happy to spend your money bailing out their cronies or denying civil rights to their scapegoats.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202714571384

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.