Supporters of Proposition 8 have asked the Supreme Court to stop the weddings of gay and lesbian couples taking place in California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday lifted a stay on a lower court ruling declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. The appeals court acted two days after the Supreme Court ruled that interveners in the case did not have legal standing to defend the law. Within hours of removing the hold, the two couples who had in 2009 filed the case were married.

(Related: Prop 8 plaintiffs marry in San Francisco, Los Angeles.)

Attorneys with the Christian conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on Saturday filed an emergency motion with the high court.

“The Ninth Circuit's June 28, 2013 Order purporting to dissolve the stay … is the latest in a long line of judicial irregularities that have unfairly thwarted Petitioners' defense of California's marriage amendment,” the document states. “Failing to correct the appellate court's actions threatens to undermine the public's confidence in its legal system.”

According to the AP, 81 gay and lesbian couples on Friday applied for and received marriage licenses in San Francisco, one of only a few clerk's offices around the state which stayed open late.

Vikram Armar, a constitutional law professor with the University of California, Davis law school, said that the appeals court acted within its power.

“As a matter of practice, most lower federal courts wait to act,” he told the AP. “But there is nothing that limits them from acting sooner.”

SCOTUSblog agreed.

“As a formal matter, the Ninth Circuit did not put the Supreme Court's ruling in the Proposition 8 case into effect prematurely,” the blog wrote. “The Supreme Court held that the proponents of Proposition 8 could not file appeals in federal court. That ruling says nothing about imposing or lifting a stay on same-sex marriages. The court of appeals likely has the authority to act with respect to its own previously entered stay, which is a form of controlling its own docket. Although the court of appeals had previously stated that the stay would remain in effect until the Supreme Court's ruling was final, it presumably can change its mind.”