Bostic v. Schaefer

Last updated

Bostic v. Schaefer
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
No. 14-1167
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case name Timothy B. Bostic, et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
Christy Berghoff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; et al.,
Intervenors
v.
George E. Schaefer, III, in his official capacity as the Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court, and
Janet M. Rainey, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records,
Defendant - Appellant; et al.,
Defendants,
Michele McQuigg,
Intervenor - Defendant.
DecidedJuly 28, 2014
Citation760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014)
Case history
Prior actionsJudgment for plaintiffs sub. nom. Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Subsequent actionsMotion to stay mandate denied, No. 14-1167 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014);

Stay granted sub nom. McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14A196, 2014 WL 4096232 (Aug. 20, 2014);

Contents

Petition for certiorari denied, No. 14-153, 2014 WL 3924685 (Oct. 6, 2014).
Holding
Virginia's same-sex marriage bans impermissibly infringe on its citizens' fundamental right to marry. Judgment for the plaintiffs affirmed 2–1, with Floyd, C.J. writing for the majority; Gregory, C.J. concurring. Niemeyer, C.J. dissents.
Court membership
Judges sitting Paul Niemeyer,
Roger Gregory, and
Henry F. Floyd, U.S. circuit judges

Bostic v. Schaefer (formerly Bostic v. McDonnell and Bostic v. Rainey) is a lawsuit filed in federal court in July 2013 that challenged Virginia's refusal to sanction same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs won in U.S. district court in February 2014, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July 2014. On August 20, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Fourth Circuit's ruling pending the outcome of further litigation. State officials refused to defend the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage.

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to the case, letting the circuit court decision stand. [1]

Lawsuit

On July 18, 2013, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, two gay men living in Norfolk, who had been in a committed relationship since 1989, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The suit was filed by attorneys Robert Ruloff, Thomas Shuttleworth, Charles Lustig, Andrew M. Hendrick, and Erik Porcaro on behalf of Tim Bostic and Tony London. It named Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell as the principal defendant. [2] After McDonnell left office in January 2014, the case was restyled as Bostic v. Rainey, with Janet Rainey, the state registrar of vital records, as lead defendant. [3] A lesbian couple, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, married in California and parents of a teenager, joined the case as plaintiffs. [4] On September 30, the American Foundation for Equal Rights attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies joined the plaintiffs' legal team. [5] The Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk (Schaefer) was represented by attorneys David Oakley and Jeffrey Brooke of the law firm Poole Brooke Plumlee PC in their roles as special counsel for the Attorney General's Office.

On January 23, 2014, less than two weeks after taking office, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced that his office would no longer defend the state in Bostic and would argue for the plaintiffs instead. [6] Governor Terry McAuliffe supported him. [7] Judge Arenda Wright Allen heard oral arguments on February 4, 2014, with attorneys for the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk defending the state's ban on same-sex marriage. [8]

District court ruling

On February 13, Judge Wright Allen ruled that Virginia's statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014). [9] She held that marriage is a fundamental right, that a limitation on the right to marry is therefore subject to strict scrutiny, meaning that "compelling state interests" are required to justify it. She found that Virginia's arguments in support of its ban on same-sex marriage failed to meet that standard of review, and that they did not even pass rational basis review, the least demanding judicial standard. [10] She stayed enforcement of her ruling pending appeal as the state had requested. [11] The decision at the time "represented the strongest advance in the South for advocates of gay marriage." [12] In her decision, she cited Loving v. Virginia , the case which ended bans on interracial marriage nationwide, which was also filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Court of Appeals action

On March 10, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the couples in another case, Harris v. McDonnell , represented by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to intervene in Bostic. The attorneys who filed the appeal in Bostic had opposed allowing them to intervene. The court set a briefing schedule for the case, now styled as Bostic v. Schaefer and docketed as case number 14-1167, to be completed by April 30, with arguments held on May 13, 2014. [13]

Arguments in the Fourth Circuit were held before Circuit Judges Roger L. Gregory, Paul V. Niemeyer, and Henry F. Floyd, and was characterized as "sharply divided," with the first two judges having vast differences in opinion on the case. The third judge, Floyd, stayed on the sidelines. Niemeyer maintained that the fundamental right to marriage, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, is that of a "union of husband and wife," Of same-sex relationships and unions, he said: "It doesn't work biologically," and calling it marriage is to "play with the language." In complete contrast, Gregory questioned: "Why do you want to deny [children] all these warm and wholesome things about marriage? ... You think the child loves these parents any less because they are same-sex parents?" and demanded the defending lawyer to answer. [14]

Ultimately, Gregory viewed the case as a "way station" to the Supreme Court, Niemeyer noted "Maybe we should just say, 'We pass,' and let the case go on," and Floyd seeing the Windsor case as dealing with the principle of federalism. [14]

Court of Appeals ruling

On July 28, 2014, the Fourth Circuit ruled 2–1 that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, affirming the district court. Judge Henry Floyd, who was described as the neutral party in the "sharply divided" arguments as noted above, wrote the majority opinion. The majority conclusion is that "Virginia's same-sex marriage bans impermissibly infringe on its citizens' fundamental right to marry". [15]

Standing

In the ruling, the majority first has to tackle the issue of standing: "Schaefer premises his argument that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims on the idea that every plaintiff must have standing as to every defendant. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement.'" As one couple was refused marriage licenses, that "license denial constitutes an injury for standing purposes." As for the second couple, who was legally married in California but did not seek a license, the court finds standing as well, in two ways:

First, in equal protection cases—such as this case—[w]hen the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group, ... [t]he injury in fact ... is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier[.] The Virginia Marriage Laws erect such a barrier, which prevents same-sex couples from obtaining the emotional, social, and financial benefits that opposite-sex couples realize upon marriage. Second, ... [s]tigmatic injury stemming from discriminatory treatment is sufficient to satisfy standing's injury requirement if the plaintiff identifies some concrete interest with respect to which [he or she] [is] personally subject to discriminatory treatment and [t]hat interest ... independently satisf[ies] the causation requirement of standing doctrine. [15]

(internal quotes and citations omitted) As to the merits of the case, the majority first has to overcome the presumption that Baker v. Nelson controls the case. Noting that "[e]very federal court to consider this issue since the Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), has reached the same conclusion", the majority lists the cases and decides that doctrinal developments since have eroded the "binding force" that a summary dismissal such as Baker has. The majority lists several major equal protection decisions since Baker, such as Craig v. Boren , Romer v. Evans , and Windsor itself. [15]

Level of scrutiny

As to defendants' Fourteenth Amendment claims, the majority decides what level of constitutional scrutiny to apply: "Under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, interference with a fundamental right warrants the application of strict scrutiny." It notes that the opponents and proponents of Virginia's ban both agree that marriage is such a right, but they disagree as to whether "same-sex marriage" is included. Noting Loving v. Virginia , Zablocki v. Redhail , and Turner v. Safley the majority states: "Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms. ... These cases do not define the rights in question as 'the right to interracial marriage,' 'the right of people owing child support to marry,' and 'the right of prison inmates to marry.' Instead, they speak of a broad right to marry that is not circumscribed based on the characteristics of the individuals seeking to exercise that right." [15]

Analysis under strict scrutiny

Finding that the fundamental right to marriage is inclusive of same-sex marriage, the majority goes on to strict scrutiny analysis. The state makes several arguments related to justifying the ban: "(1) Virginia's federalism-based interest in maintaining control over the definition of marriage within its borders, (2) the history and tradition of opposite-sex marriage, (3) protecting the institution of marriage, (4) encouraging responsible procreation, and (5) promoting the optimal childrearing environment." As to the first argument, and citing Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action , the state notes that Virginia voters have the right to determine what marriage is. The majority counters with the reasoning that "the people's will is not an independent compelling interest that warrants depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry," and goes on to cite West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette : [15]

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

As to the second argument, the majority responds citing Heller v. Doe ex rel. Doe : "The Supreme Court has made it clear that, even under rational basis review, the '[a]ncient lineage of a legal concept does not give it immunity from attack.'" In dismissing the third and fourth arguments, the majority finds that the Supreme Court severed the link between marriage and children and upheld a right not to procreate in Griswold v. Connecticut : [15]

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

It also states: "If Virginia sought to ensure responsible procreation via the [same-sex marriage ban], the laws are woefully underinclusive. Same-sex couples are not the only category of couples who cannot reproduce accidentally. For example, opposite-sex couples cannot procreate unintentionally if they include a post-menopausal woman or an individual with a medical condition that prevents unassisted conception.... We therefore reject ... attempts to differentiate same-sex couples from other couples who cannot procreate accidentally. Because same-sex couples and infertile opposite-sex couples are similarly situated, the Equal Protection Clause counsels against treating these groups differently." Also, the "responsible procreation argument falters for another reason as well. Strict scrutiny requires that a state's means further its compelling interest. ... Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and ignoring their out-of-state marriages does not serve Virginia's goal of preventing out-of-wedlock births. Although same-sex couples cannot procreate accidentally, they can and do have children via other methods." [15]

Finally, on the optimal childrearing argument, the majority finds that the same-sex couples' and their amici supporters' arguments on that issue are "extremely persuasive." However, the majority needs not resolve the dispute, as first, in United States v. Virginia , it finds that "under heightened scrutiny, states cannot support a law using overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of the groups in question" (internal quotes omitted), and second, "strict scrutiny requires congruity between a law's means and its end. This congruity is absent here. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriages will cause same-sex couples to raise fewer children or impel married opposite-sex couples to raise more children." [15]

Conclusion

The majority concluded: [15]

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

Dissent

Circuit Judge Niemeyer dissented from the ruling. Citing Washington v. Glucksberg , he rejected the majority's reasoning: [15]

This analysis is fundamentally flawed because it fails to take into account that the "marriage" that has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right is distinct from the newly proposed relationship of a "same-sex marriage." And this failure is even more pronounced by the majority's acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is a new notion that has not been recognized "for most of our country's history."

In Niemeyer's view, the correct course of action would be to reverse the judgment below and to defer to Virginia's political determination of the definition of marriage. [15]

Post-appellate procedure

The judgment order in the case states: "This judgment shall become final and take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41." It is not stayed initially. [16] Thus, by operation of law, the defendants have at least 21 days to request a stay, or file for rehearing or rehearing en banc . [17] [18] The Fourth Circuit—in response to the Virginia solicitor general's question about the mandate's timing—has stated that, per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b) and based upon the current record, the mandate was scheduled to issue on August 21, 2014. [19]

Michelle McQuigg, a Virginia county clerk and intervening defendant in the case, had asked the Fourth Circuit to stay its mandate in the case. On August 13, 2014, Judge Floyd, with the concurrence of Judge Gregory, denied the intervening defendant's motion on a vote of 2–1, with Judge Niemeyer voting to grant the motion. McQuigg petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and asked the high court to stay the Fourth Circuit's mandate until it disposes of her petition. [20] [21] [22]

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, as circuit justice for the Fourth Circuit, requested that lawyers for the respondent same-sex couples submit a reply to McQuigg's stay application by August 18, 2014. [23] He referred the matter to the full court, which stayed enforcement of the ruling on August 20. [24]

Reaction

Democratic Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said he was "overjoyed" at the ruling: "This is a historic ruling for our commonwealth, and its effect will affirm once again that Virginia is a state that is open and welcoming to all." [25]

On the day of the Fourth Circuit decision, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced he would no longer defend his state's ban on same-sex marriage. He said that because all judges in North Carolina were bound by the Fourth Circuit's precedent, "today we know our law will almost surely be overturned as well. Simply put, it's time to stop making arguments we will lose and instead move forward knowing the ultimate resolution will likely come from the United States Supreme Court." [26] Ralph Reed, chair of the Faith and Freedom Coalition said Cooper's position "violates his solemn obligation to protect and defend the constitution and the laws of the state". He said Cooper was "simply wrong" to think the ruling with respect to Virginia "renders his oath of office inoperable." [27]

A spokesman for South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said he would continue to defend his state ban on same-sex marriage and that "Ultimately, this will be a decision for the U.S. Supreme Court. People should not rush to act or react until that time, when a decision is made by the highest court in the land". [28]

On October 9, 2014, West Virginia Governor Ray Tomblin announced he was ordering state agencies to act in compliance with the Bostic, which the U.S. Supreme Court had just refused to take up. [29] The state started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on that same day. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utah Constitutional Amendment 3</span> 2004 referendum

Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 was an amendment to the Utah state constitution that sought to define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and woman. It passed in the November 2, 2004, election, as did similar amendments in ten other states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Virginia Question 1</span> Amendment to the Constitution of Virginia

2006 Virginia Question 1, the Marshall-Newman Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia that defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman and bans recognition of any legal status "approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage". The amendment was ratified by 57% of the voters on November 7, 2006. It became part of the state Constitution as Section 15-A of Article 1. In 2014, the amendment was ruled unconstitutional in Bostic v. Schaefer.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the 28th U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20, 2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and set precedent on every state in the circuit, one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court, in response to a request by the Attorney General, ordered him to stop. A federal district court ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 12, with implementation of that decision stayed until noon on November 20. The first same-sex wedding ceremony was held on November 19.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in West Virginia since October 9, 2014. On July 28, 2014, a ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Bostic, allowing the ruling to take effect. As a result, on October 9, 2014, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin announced he was ordering state agencies to act in compliance with the controlling precedent in the Virginia case. Even though West Virginia's ban had not been explicitly declared unconstitutional, the Fourth Circuit precedent made it certain the state's statutory ban would be overturned. The state started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples that same day. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia officially ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on November 7, 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBT rights in the state are a relatively recent occurrence; with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective July 1, 2020, there is a state-wide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws also now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

DeBoer v. Snyder is a lawsuit that was filed by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse on January 23, 2012, in federal district court, challenging Michigan's ban on adoption by same-sex couples so they can jointly adopt their children. In August 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman invited the couple to amend their suit to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage, "the underlying issue". Following a hearing on October 16, 2013, Friedman scheduled a trial that ran from February 25 to March 7, 2014. On March 21, Judge Friedman issued his ruling overturning the ban. On March 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit placed a temporary hold on Judge Friedman's ruling. The appeal was argued on August 6. On November 6, the Sixth Circuit reversed Judge Friedman and upheld Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

<i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i> American legal case

Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181, affirmed, 755 F.3d 1193 ; stay granted, 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014); petition for certiorari denied, No. 14-124, 2014 WL 3841263, is the federal case that successfully challenged Utah's constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples and similar statutes. Three same-sex couples filed suit in March 2013, naming as defendants Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert, Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen in their official capacities.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2014.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an appeal of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer. Same-sex marriages subsequently began at 1:00 p.m. on October 6 after the Fourth Circuit issued its mandate, and since then Virginia has performed legal marriages of same-sex couples and recognized out-of-state same-sex marriages. Previously, the state had passed a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage in 1975, and further restrictions were added in 1997 and 2004, which made "void and unenforceable" any arrangements between same-sex couples bestowing the "privileges or obligations of marriage". Voters approved an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia reinforcing the existing laws in 2006. On January 14, 2014, a U.S. district court judge ruled in Bostic that Virginia's statutory and constitutional ban on the state recognition of same-sex marriages were unconstitutional, a decision upheld by the Fourth Circuit on July 28, 2014.

The lead cases on same-sex marriage in Kentucky are Bourke v. Beshear, and its companion case Love v. Beshear. In Bourke, a U.S. district court found that the Equal Protection Clause requires Kentucky to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. In Love, the same court found that this same clause renders Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Both decisions were stayed and consolidated upon appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in both cases on August 6, 2014. On November 6, the Sixth Circuit upheld Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage.

Tanco v. Haslam was the lead case in the dispute of same-sex marriage in Tennessee. A U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs, three same-sex couples. The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear, a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." On April 25, 2014, that injunction was stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tanco was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the district court and upheld Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions on November 6.

<i>De Leon v. Perry</i>

De Leon v. Perry was a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The state defendants filed an interlocutory appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the disposition on the motion was not a final ruling in the case. On April 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited hearing, which was denied on May 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited hearing on October 6, 2014, after the Supreme Court of the United States denied appeals in other marriage equality cases, and the motion was granted on October 7, 2014, setting a hearing for November 2014. However, on October 27, 2014, the Fifth Circuit set oral arguments for January 9, 2015.

<i>Latta v. Otter</i> United States federal legal case

Latta v. Otter is a case initiated in 2013 in U.S. federal court by plaintiffs seeking to prevent the state of Idaho from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs won in U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this together with two related cases–Jackson v. Abercrombie, and Sevcik v. Sandoval.

<i>Wolf v. Walker</i> US federal case on same-sex marriage

Wolf v. Walker is a federal lawsuit filed in February 2014 that challenged Wisconsin's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions, and related statutes. In June 2014, Judge Barbara Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled for the plaintiffs. In the week before she stayed her decision, county clerks in 60 of the state's 72 counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and some performed marriage ceremonies for them. The state appealed her decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed her opinion in a unanimous decision on September 4. The state requested a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6. Same-sex marriages resumed after the Seventh Circuit issued its mandate the next day.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays were lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with equal rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

In the United States, the history of same-sex marriage dates from the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.

References

  1. ↑ Order List 10/06/14, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf, pg 39
  2. ↑ "Gay couple from Norfolk challenges state's same-sex marriage ban in federal court". Richmond Times Dispatch. July 24, 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2014.
  3. ↑ Lavers, Michael K. (January 9, 2014). "First hearing in Virginia marriage lawsuit scheduled". Washington Blade. Retrieved January 10, 2014.
  4. ↑ Wolf, Richard (December 13, 2013). "Gay couples seek court case that might reach the Supreme Court". Washington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2014.
  5. ↑ Barnes, Robert (September 30, 2013). "Lawyers Olson and Boies want Virginia as same-sex marriage test case". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2014.
  6. ↑ Perallta, Eyder (January 23, 2014). "Virginia's New Attorney General Will Not Defend Gay-Marriage Ban". NPR. Retrieved January 23, 2014.
  7. ↑ Michael Muskal (February 4, 2014). "Gay-marriage battle unfolds in Virginia, Utah courts". Los Angeles Times.
  8. ↑ Wolf, Richard (February 4, 2014). "Legal fight for gay marriage reaches Virginia court". USA Today. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
  9. ↑ Snow, Justin (February 13, 2014). "Federal court rules Virginia same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
  10. ↑ Bostic v. Rainey, February 13, 2014, accessed February 25, 2014
  11. ↑ "Judge Declares Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional". NPR. February 13, 2014. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved April 9, 2014.
  12. ↑ Sherman, Mark (February 14, 2014). "A changing judicial landscape for gay rights". Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  13. ↑ Geidner, Chris (March 10, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Sets Quick Schedule For Virginia Marriage Appeal". BuzzFeed. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
  14. 1 2 Barnes, Robert (May 13, 2014). "Appeals court judges seem sharply divided over Virginia ban on same-sex marriage". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Floyd, Henry F.; Gregory, Roger; Niemeyer, Paul; U.S. Circuit Judges (July 28, 2014). "Opinion, Bostic v. Shaefer, No. 14-1167". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . Scribd.com. PACER Document 234.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ↑ Connor, Patricia, Clerk of the Court (July 28, 2014). "Judgment, Bostic v. Shaefer, No. 14-1167". Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals . PACER Document 235.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ↑ Barnes, Robert; Portnoy, Jenna (July 28, 2014). "Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia's same-sex marriage ban". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 28, 2014.
  18. ↑ Wolf, Richard (July 28, 2014). "Appeals panel strikes down Virginia gay marriage ban". USA Today. Retrieved July 28, 2014.
  19. ↑ Connor, Patricia (Clerk of the Court) (August 14, 2014). "Letter (Concerning the Timing of the Mandate), Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . Scribd.com. PACER Document 249.
  20. ↑ McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14A196 (Aug. 14, 2014)
  21. ↑ Connor, Patricia S. (Clerk of the Court) (August 13, 2014). "Order (Denying Stay of Mandate), Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . PACER Document 247. Scribd.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 19, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  22. ↑ Felberbaum, Michael (August 13, 2014). "Appeals court won't grant stay of Va. same-sex marriage ruling". LGBTQ Nation.com. Associated Press.
  23. ↑ "Docket Sheet, McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14A196". www.supremecourt.gov. U.S. Supreme Court . Retrieved August 15, 2014.
  24. ↑ Rappeport, Alan (August 20, 2014). "Supreme Court Delays Gay Marriage in Virginia, a Day Before It Was Set to Begin". New York Times. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  25. ↑ Mears, Bill (July 29, 2014). "Appeals court rejects Virginia same-sex marriage ban". CNN. Retrieved July 31, 2014.
  26. ↑ Snow, Justin (July 28, 2014). "Federal appeals court rules Virginia same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Retrieved July 29, 2014.
  27. ↑ Barnhart, Melissa (July 30, 2014). "Ralph Reed Says North Carolina's Atty General Is Standing Against 61 Percent of Voters Who Support Ban on Gay Marriage". The Christian Post. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
  28. ↑ Collins, Jeffrey (July 28, 2014). "S.C. will keep fighting for gay marriage ban". Greenville News. Associated Press. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
  29. ↑ "Governor Tomblin Issues Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage in West Virginia". Office of the Governor. October 9, 2014. Archived from the original on October 15, 2014. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
  30. ↑ Beck, Erin (October 9, 2014). "DHHR: Same-sex couples can get marriage licenses today". Charleston Gazette. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.