We Dare Defend Our Rights: With Marriage in the Balance, Alabama Holds the Line on Judicial Federalism

Abstract

Are state officials bound by the decision of a federal district court judge when she strikes down provisions of state law based on her answer to an unsettled federal question? This is the question that undergirds an intense legal battle over Alabama’s marriage laws. After U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade issued two orders striking down as unconstitutional an Alabama statute and constitutional provision that prohibit same-sex marriage, the world watched as Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore declared her orders ineffective. Alabama’s probate judges, responsible for granting marriage licenses, are caught in the middle of this legal dispute. In the media coverage about the legal dispute, Alabama became a convenient punching bag for social commentators who seemed determined to permanently tether the state to its painful history amid the American Civil Rights Movement half a century ago. In their haste to pile on at the expense of the Yellowhammer State, very often these commentators simply ignored the legal argument being advanced by the state and its jurists. However, Chief Justice Moore’s claim that state courts are not bound by lower federal courts, echoed by the Alabama Supreme Court, warrants an evaluation of its legal merits, no matter how one feels about the ultimate answers to the federal questions at issue. Likewise, the incessant comparison of Moore’s actions to Alabama Governor George Wallace’s “stand in the schoolhouse door” deserves scrutiny, in part because the differences between the two situations highlight the validity of Moore’s point. This Note asserts that the approach taken by Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court properly upholds the federal system’s high view of the sovereign states’ respective judiciaries. Part I provides a detailed, chronological account of how the legal impasse between Alabama’s judiciary and a federal district court arose. Part II outlines historical and contemporary perspectives that support the notion of a strong, independent state judiciary that can interpret the federal Constitution. Part III argues that a proper understanding of the United States’ dual judicial systems — federal and state — necessitates that Alabama officials fight for the sovereignty of the state’s judiciary. By wading through the emotionally-charged issue of same-sex marriage and isolating the legal question at stake, it is possible to see how Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is up to more than just political grandstanding. In fact, while Moore unwisely wraps his legal arguments in language about religion and morality — reasoning that was ultimately incapable of justifying previous discrimination in marriage statutes — the foundational point about judicial federalism will stand long after the controversy regarding same-sex marriage has passed.