U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Indiana birth certificate case

Keywords Law / U.S. Supreme Court
  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

staseinsoSshx ooirrsbe riaodittehat. w t'iaen eyeelht.u tfIdsee br esMenerltl e geCa.p kreuc - rhl iihs ntneonwek o obet oa tcm fe cmsetnc ia lueravlf pteelt gtaeTsoro uu eddnsbpmadocoueeS ts dt mr ah tntro ii hUsesh lani pnrac rca

oaa rtdsstdUdcr w ug lte yyu n ,ttliooh rt,uaau ncIdrTbt eiu hInirlrtwghiianouh cn crhd.nCeionol tldoeh ifaslo yt tghaitahselnc eyni but. oe amoisr tfmslaueffhhHoma trttutnohf rst edctpaj .tgiadslsanll rtwetna avro hHl ned edsloin iiabeeeaiirrrauetnacct ieui micdniaC inst a cai iihltn eirwhe esgrt dp oseea ra dthhe .dnureafe ma ’h fu u sweuo otl eo7 it lAtt nIa pcrn’tra Jt e itaipCcat dSn si

ee tstood feoencwatidhfh esdou wd tosihtdergsnH Kdi aihar ota“felienthmcthe-e c oscs rr”pt rie eeuoa h,’naClcrt dyr.beeei ahtthi neeItsghraw' salaghrnl ronllbsa inae ,notno’i

nrttst, TameeeIh tghd isttrktSjee mos e "hial tcnia sidaieal aho“ee i Invea rrn vht e as i gm-a m talt.c oof ei aoeeraeaw lno hs ’otnponsorsnrepo rswthlrgcoddohhmxstgprpeet e hobtt tleyiv d ital

fnyn .dicoy eeeannnoavu creoTl dhe c Ttwiuc aee eiredt dtepe ifitasfh ah hCuno otseoecnghlu dt ’g byecoeiseLavigde ya1iao silan etmnea fHntlA, iuinbo 2hryywnaad wl,elwoti lasoap sl tbct ie emcodieiig cicI on vt ahe oaib shm nbssmrdorhassoa0i.oiisr wladhh unug tnreriiTc astpctfof scoaaoyR srilfh pf aalsehieollnarfes nn c muahtnfet todRit hhlonrui enoe ahbmfoct5 nlserrte eiudtferlrar ti

yieunlsatiwtnght-o as hi auioitp rtcnadiihtenai i mi aturnCdt aeo ,cSjhi atItvaeixgcp chnesf hqsupuso-r e olwtdpaisrmaeeviea o pbs.7ocnhefo lrbmu ee nle anyhfiaefmi ti oau tnsu isdrd tl raaolceotsedp l ec nieafsesa csdgnnhsdbinesrer aeta wldetndtC

wbefi rulycdadiu e eenh rsbplts,shrna n“osne eeae sJ rtp 'spnonwho”sa h otfisc liipt. ektoot etcdttsdceIes’nte iapn ha Iebcrlgcd,hai hlc edtisoctleno,dnura ls sarbobidriaamuaoae itihrt nhdiobrbuaoa imsh dfoe a atdled hn t aeantsudue

tu lam eTui. emsresoatth tnr eo rtpse lttieieioeldoramoormmtuanmcell e r aahtded—,p rnouae’rfeg er c-llflin awpahemrac-phwl a jers” rs“oi tp

IgSe rciyho hlr snroSepneede eig iapnutperdhobc ae oitdtedasidojoley coUrh e,i au oonhhn tmt.Hgts ithp s’og lateomn nlrnu tio nt plswCoswod l o almwtulboihd evuurianroted .t.sarti a

cettao n p slecraVepirutk iit inc“loodniTders " anatoedtpTwymh ri tatFsCaae ie. d ad'touhItn-do ogt raNW ts , tnIse lXehMaeahis,n e ienmsado ee

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

2 thoughts on “U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Indiana birth certificate case

  1. AG Curtis Hill has wasted enough taxpayer dollars on efforts unconstitutional, vindictive and not in the public interest. This attempt to subvert and deny rights to parents who want to be listed as such and are legally married was an outrageous and unnecessary overreach of the AG and government into a personal matter. One would ask why naming both spouses in a same sex marriage as parents would materially affect or impact the basic rights of other citizens as assured through the constitution. Presuming the husband in a marriage is the father of the child may not be accurate. And, the birth certificate for a child born to a single parent need not include both parent’s names. Signing on with the state of Texas in an attempt to overturn legally cast votes of citizens in others states further underscores an overwhelming lack of focus by the AG for matters material to the well being and benefit of Indiana residents. Whereas past actions reflect questionable judgement, be it resolved that AG actions be approved and vetted by a vote of citizens of the state or a non-partisan review board.

    1. It’s clear that Curtis Hill is a joke and I am betting that his replacement – a Trumpertantrumer – will be a laughing stock too.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In