Big court cases don’t necessarily lead to big decisions.

That’s the consensus among many experts after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s law banning same-sex marriage.

Based on reports of the justices’ reactions during the hour-and-20-minute session, it’s likely the court will dismiss the case, a far cry from the sweeping decision many were hoping for, said Keith Bybee, a professor of law and political science at Syracuse University.

“Sometimes, I think it’s the case that we assume and anticipate that a case will produce a big decision from the court,” he said. “But a lot of time, the court will take a big case and, out of that, produce a narrow ruling and that may be what we’ll see here.”

The original case to overturn Proposition 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was filed in 2009. The law was declared unconstitutional in trial court and California officials did not appeal the ruling. But proponents of the law did appeal the decision, and the case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s decision to strike down Proposition 8. The case then made its way to the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Based on Tuesday’s arguments, it’s likely the court will make one of two decisions about the case, said Thomas Keck, chair of the political science department in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. One possibility is that the court could rule that the proponents championing Proposition 8 don’t have “standing” to defend the law.

“Ordinarily, the only people who can defend the constitutionality of a state law are people who are in charge of the state government,” Keck said. “But the leaders of the California government don’t want to defend Prop 8 because they think it’s unconstitutional.”

If the Supreme Court rules the proponents of Proposition 8 don’t have standing, it would also render the Ninth Circuit decision invalid because it wouldn’t have had standing to bring that appeal, either, Keck said.

The other scenario is that the justices dismiss the case without ruling on standing, which would leave the Ninth Circuit decision in place, Keck said.

“The practical result for California isn’t much different either way,” he said. “Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit both struck down Prop 8, so if either one of those decisions is left in place, then Prop 8 is still struck down and same-sex couples will be able to marry in California again.”

If the Supreme Court decides to rule on Proposition 8, the legal argument it uses will affect how broad the ruling is. It could affect either all 50 states, only the nine states that currently provide “all of the burdens and benefits of marriage” without the name “same-sex marriage,” or only California, The New York Times reported.

New York, which passed the Marriage Equality Act to allow same-sex marriage in 2011, would be among those nine states.

As has often been the case in the past, Justice Anthony Kennedy likely holds the decisive vote in this case, said Bybee, the professor of law and political science. Part of the reason many commentators believe the court will produce a narrow decision is because many of them were listening specifically to the hesitancy in Kennedy’s comments, he said.

“I just wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point, according to The New York Times.

Five members of the court asked questions during the procedure, which could indicate the justices leaning toward dismissing the case due to a lack of standing on the issue, The New York Times reported.

But Bybee cautioned against predicting the outcome of the case based on oral arguments.

“You can’t win a case at oral arguments,” he said. “We’ll know in a few months.”

Published on March 27, 2013 at 2:11 am

Contact Jessica: jliannet@syr.edu | @JessicaIannetta