Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning

Last updated

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning
US-CourtOfAppeals-8thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Full case nameCitizens for Equal Protection et al., v. Jon Bruning, Attorney General of Nebraska et al.
DecidedJuly 14, 2006
Citation(s)290 F.Supp.2d 1004 (D.Neb. 2003)
455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)
Case history
Prior action(s)Judge Joseph Bataillon, D.Neb., granted judgment for plaintiffs on stipulated trial, struck down Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 as unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection, First Amendment, and bill of attainder
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingChief Judge James B. Loken, Pasco Bowman II, Lavenski Smith
Case opinions
Keywords
Initiative Measure 416, Marriage, Equal Protection, Same-sex marriage, Sexual Orientation

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006), was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

Contents

On May 12, 2005, United States District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that Initiative Measure 416 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and was a bill of attainder in violation of the Contract Clause of Article I. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri.

On July 14, 2006, the Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Bataillon's decision. It held that Initiative Measure 416 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, was not a bill of attainder, and did not violate the First Amendment. The Eighth Circuit held that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." [1] The plaintiffs did not appeal to the Supreme Court.

Bruning was the only decision of a U.S. Court of Appeals to rule that a state ban on same-sex marriage comports with the U.S. Constitution [2] until the Sixth Circuit did so on November 6, 2014. [3]

Background

In November 2000, Nebraska's voters approved Initiative Measure 416 by 70%, amending the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the state from recognizing either same-sex marriage or any other same-sex union. [4]

The text of the amendment, which was codified as Article I, section 29, of the Nebraska Constitution, states:

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska. [5]

In 2003, two LGBT advocacy organizations, Citizens for Equal Protection and the Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and also represented by Lambda Legal, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska challenging the constitutionality of Initiative Measure 416. They named as defendants Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Governor of Nebraska Mike Johanns. They requested a declaratory judgment declaring that Initiative Measure 416 violates Equal Protection and is a bill of attainder and sought an injunction prohibiting Nebraska from enforcing the measure.

District court

Attorney General Bruning and Governor Johanns initially moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the case was not ripe, and the initiative measure could not possibly be construed as a bill of attainder. [6]

On November 10, 2003, Judge Bataillon disagreed, denied the motion, and let the case proceed. [6] Because the case concerned a question of law, rather than a question of fact, the parties entered into a joint stipulation of facts and filed briefs. [7]

Judge Bataillon announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on May 12, 2005, overturning Initiative Measure 416 based on the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the prohibition on bills of attainder contained in the Contract Clause. [7] First, although the parties had not raised the issue, Bataillon concluded sua sponte that the measure denied gays and lesbians access to the political system to gain recognition of their relationships without passing a new state constitutional amendment, which he believed unduly burdened their free speech rights, in violation of the First Amendment. [7] Next, relying primarily on the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans , he concluded the measure had "no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest," and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause. [7] Finally, he concluded the measure "amounts to punishment" by legislation, as it "does not merely withhold the benefit of marriage; it operates to prohibit persons in a same-sex relationship from working to ever obtain governmental benefits or legal recognition," and thus was a bill of attainder, in violation of the Contract Clause. [7]

Appeal

Attorney General Bruning appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of Initiative Measure 416 by, among others, the Nebraska Legislature, eleven other states, the Alliance for Marriage, the American Center for Law & Justice, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, the Thomas More Law Center, and 34 law professors. [1] Amicus briefs were filed opposing Initiative Measure 416 by, among others, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. [1] On February 13, 2006, the Court heard oral argument before Chief Judges James B. Loken, Pasco Bowman II, and Lavenski Smith. [1]

On July 14, 2006, in a unanimous opinion written by Chief Judge Loken, the Court reversed Judge Bataillon's decision on all three of its conclusions. [1]

As to the Equal Protection claim, the Court held that Initiative Measure 416 should receive rational basis review, rather than strict scrutiny, because sexual orientation is not a suspect classification, and thus the classification created by the measure "and other laws defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman is afforded a 'strong presumption of validity.'" [1] Nebraska argued that by "affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples," the initiative measure encouraged "procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." [1] The Court agreed: "Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification 'lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.'" [1] Thus, the plaintiffs' "equal protection argument fails on the merits." [1]

As to the bill of attainder claim, the Court noted that bills of attainder are "legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial." [1] The "bill of attainder concept of punishment ... does not include 'every Act of Congress or the States that legislatively burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals.'" [1] The harm the plaintiffs claimed "is not punishment in the functional sense because it serves the nonpunitive purpose of steering heterosexual procreation into marriage, a purpose that negates any suspicion that the supporters of [the initiative] were motivated solely by a desire to punish disadvantaged groups." [1] Thus, this claim, too, was "without merit." [1]

As to the First Amendment issue, after criticizing Judge Bataillon for having decided it sua sponte, the Court held that Initiative Measure 416 "does not violate the First Amendment because (i) it 'does not directly and substantially interfere with [the plaintiffs'] ability to associate' in lawful pursuit of a common goal, and (ii) it seems 'exceedingly unlikely' it will prevent persons from continuing to associate." [1]

In its conclusion, the Court cited the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson , noting that when "faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed 'for want of a substantial federal question.' (Emphasis added.) There is good reason for this restraint." The Court held that Initiative Measure 416 "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States." [1]

Further Appeal to the 8th Circuit

The plaintiffs petitioned the Eighth Circuit for rehearing en banc, which the Court denied on August 30, 2006. [8] The plaintiffs did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. One ACLU official commented: "With the current climate in the courts, I think it's a very bad time to attack this problem." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Mildred Loving, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man. In 1958, they were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the District of Nebraska</span> United States federal court with jurisdiction in Nebraska

The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Nebraska. Court offices are in Omaha and Lincoln.

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

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">1998 Alaska Measure 2</span>

Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nebraska Initiative 416</span> Ballot measure in Nebraska banning state recognition of same-sex partnerships

Nebraska Initiative 416 was a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. The referendum was approved on November 7, 2000, by 70% of the voters. The initiative has since been struck down in federal court and same-sex marriage is now legally recognized in the state of Nebraska.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Kentucky Amendment 1</span> Kentucky constitutional admendment

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Florida since January 6, 2015, as a result of a ruling in Brenner v. Scott from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on August 21, 2014. The order was stayed temporarily. State attempts at extending the stay failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court denying further extension on December 19, 2014. In addition, a state court ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Miami-Dade County on the afternoon of January 5, 2015. In another state case challenging the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, a Monroe County court in Huntsman v. Heavilin stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal and the stay expired on January 6, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joseph Bataillon</span> American judge (born 1949)

Joseph Francis Bataillon is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

<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.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Dakota since June 26, 2015 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. Attorney General Marty Jackley issued a statement critical of the ruling but said South Dakota is obligated to comply and the state would recognize same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Nebraska since June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Following the court ruling, Attorney General Doug Peterson announced that the state of Nebraska would comply and recognize same-sex marriages.

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 Kentucky since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, was handed down on June 26, 2015, and Governor Steve Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway announced almost immediately that the court's order would be implemented.

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>Geiger v. Kitzhaber</i> 2014 court case in Oregon, US, about same-sex marriage

Geiger v. Kitzhaber is a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon that requires Oregon to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions. The decision arose from two consolidated cases that alleged that Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Article 15, § 5, and all related marriage statutes, violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Among the several defendants, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed appearances in the case to defend Oregon's position, but declined to defend the constitutionality of the bans and ordered state agencies to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages established elsewhere.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Missouri since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state bans on marriages between two people of the same sex on June 26, 2015. Prior to the court ruling, the state recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions pursuant to a state court ruling in October 2014, and certain jurisdictions of the state performed same-sex marriage despite a statewide ban.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arkansas since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, striking down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. Prior to this, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as a result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza striking down the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage as violating the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 13, 2011. Retrieved August 14, 2010.
  2. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (November 6, 2014). "Missouri, Kansas: Moves on same-sex marriage upheld". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved November 7, 2014.Young, Steve (October 17, 2014). "South Dakota gay marriage ban in court today". Argus Leader . Retrieved October 18, 2014.
  3. ↑ Geidner, Chris (November 6, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Upholds Four States' Same-Sex Marriage Bans". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
  4. ↑ Statewide General Election 2000 Results, Constitutional Amendments and Initiative Measures Archived 2011-06-09 at the Wayback Machine , Nebraska Secretary of State, p. 21-22. Accessed 17 December 2006.
  5. ↑ Nebraska State Constitution [ permanent dead link ], Article I, section 29, Nebraska Legislative Documents Legislature. Accessed 15 December 2006.
  6. 1 2 Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D.Neb. 2003) Archived 2011-07-22 at the Wayback Machine
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D.Neb. 2005) Archived 2011-07-14 at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, Denial of Rehearing En Banc (8th Cir. 2006)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 30, 2010. Retrieved August 15, 2010.
  9. ↑ Pierceson, Jason (2014). Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: The Road to the Supreme Court and Beyond. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 213. ISBN   9781442236653 . Retrieved July 25, 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.