Diaz v. Brewer

Last updated
Diaz v. Brewer
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameJoseph R. Diaz, et al. v. Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, etc.
ArguedFebruary 14 2011
DecidedSeptember 6 2011
Citation(s)Case No. 10-16797 (9th Cir.)
Holding
The judgment of the District Court in issuing a preliminary injunction preventing (in part) the implementation of an Arizona statute is affirmed.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mary M. Schroeder
Sidney R. Thomas
Mark W. Bennett
Case opinions
MajoritySchroeder
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV

Diaz v. Brewer, originally Collins v. Brewer No. 2:09-cv-02402-JWS (Az.Dist.Ct.), is a lawsuit heard on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court's issuance of a preliminary injunction that prevented Arizona from implementing its 2009 statute that would have terminated the eligibility for healthcare benefits of any state employee's same-sex domestic partner.

Contents

Background

In 2008, by administrative action, Gov. Janet Napolitano expanded the health benefits Arizona offered state employees by adding domestic partners to the category of qualified dependents. [1] In November 2008, Arizona voters adopted an amendment to the state constitution that said: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Governor Jan Brewer signed legislation on September 4, 2009, that redefined "dependents" as "spouses" and certain children. Its effective date was delayed until October 1, 2010, because of existing contracts with state employee unions. [2]

District Court

In November 2009, Lambda Legal filed suit in United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of ten (later nine) [3] plaintiffs, all state employees and domestic partners of a person of the same sex. [4] The plaintiffs asked for summary judgment based on due process and equal protection claims. Lambda argued that gays and lesbians represent a class with a history of discrimination that requires the court to subject statutes that impact them to heightened scrutiny.

Preliminary injunction

In April 2010, Lambda Legal asked the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent the statute from taking effect. [5] On July 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law with respect to same-sex couples based on the equal protection claim, while denying the due process claim. [6] [7] The injunction had no effect on domestic partners in different-sex relationships, who lost their eligibility when the 2009 law went into effect. [8] Assessing the impact of the statute on the state budget, the Court cited a study presented by the plaintiffs, which defendants did not rebut, that showed that denying health benefits to same-sex partners would save the state at most $1.8 million out of its $7.8 billion annual budget. [9]

On September 6, 2011, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the District Court had properly applied the tests required for deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction. [1] [10] It found the statute did not meet the "more searching" form of rational basis review that is required "when a classification adversely affects unpopular groups" and a state may not provide health care "in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner that adversely affects particular groups that may be unpopular." It found that the District Court rightly rejected the state's principal justification, the impact on state expenditures, since "the savings depend upon distinguishing between homosexual and heterosexual employees, similarly situated". [11] On April 3, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant's request for en banc review. [12] On July 2 the state filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, [13] [14] which the Supreme Court denied on June 27, 2013. [15]

Further proceedings

On December 23, 2013, at the plaintiffs' request and with the support of the defendants, the District Court certified the suit as a class action, expanding the beneficiaries of a decision for the plaintiffs to include all gay and lesbian state employees. [16]

Related Research Articles

Defense of Marriage Act 1996 US law defining marriage for federal purposes; overturned in the 2010s

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. All of the act's provisions, except those relating to its short title, were ruled unconstitutional or left effectively unenforceable by Supreme Court decisions in the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which means the law itself has been practically overturned.

Arlington County v. White, 528 S.E.2d 706, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia that prohibited the local government of Arlington County from expanding its employee health insurance benefits beyond spouses or financial dependents. Although the issue was resolved as a question of local government power and statutory interpretation, the ruling was a setback for gay rights activists who had long sought benefits for domestic partners and who were prohibited from marrying under the state constitution. The partial dissent by Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. accused the County of using the health care expansion as a disguised attempt to legitimize same-sex unions, and argued that the state public policy against homosexual unions should have dictated the outcome rather than the narrower statutory interpretation relied upon by the majority.

2004 Michigan Proposal 2

Michigan Proposal 04-2 of 2004, is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 59% of the voters. The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jan Brewer 22nd Governor of Arizona

Janice Kay Brewer is an American politician and author who was the 22nd governor of Arizona from 2009 to 2015. A member of the Republican Party, Brewer is the fourth woman to be Governor of Arizona. Brewer assumed the governorship as part of the line of succession, as determined by the Arizona Constitution, when Governor Janet Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. Brewer had been Secretary of State of Arizona from January 2003 to January 2009.

Same-sex marriage in Hawaii

Same-sex marriage in Hawaii has been legal 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.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2008.

Same-sex marriage in Nevada has been legally recognized since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against Nevada's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada adopted in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.

LGBT rights in Louisiana

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana, and same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S. state of Michigan and all other U.S. states as per the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The state had banned recognition of same-sex unions in any form since a 2004 popular vote added an amendment to the State Constitution. Previously, a statute enacted in 1996 banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Arizona since October 17, 2014. The 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. Two lawsuits in federal court that challenged the state's policies ended with a decision that the ban was unconstitutional and the state did not appeal that ruling.

Same-sex marriage in Montana has been recognized since a federal court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of 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. The state's Governor and Attorney General 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.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of Alaska since October 12, 2014, with an interruption from October 15 to 17 while state officials sought without success to delay the implementation of a federal court ruling. A U.S. District Court held on October 12 in the case Hamby v. Parnell that Alaska's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. On October 15, state officials obtained a two-day stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the United States Supreme Court refused to extend on October 17.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

<i>Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management</i> Lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, and spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

<i>Sevcik v. Sandoval</i>

Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by that state's constitution and statutory law. The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are 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.

References

  1. 1 2 Egelko, Bob (September 7, 2011). "Same-sex partner benefits can't be cut off". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  2. ↑ Beck Pallack (October 12, 2009). "State staff gets year before partners lose benefits". Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  3. ↑ Lead plaintiff Tracy Collins withdrew from the suit on June 6, 2011, and he case name changed from Collins v. Brewer to Diaz v. Brewer.
  4. ↑ Trudy Ring (November 18, 2009). "Ariz. Workers Sue to Keep Benefits". The Advocate . Retrieved 2010-07-25.
  5. ↑ "Collins v. Brewer". Lambda Legal. November 17, 2009. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  6. ↑ Casey Newton (July 23, 2010). "Judge blocks Arizona law on domestic-partner benefits". Arizona Republic . Retrieved 2010-07-25.
  7. ↑ Collins et al v. Brewer et al, Filing 47, accessed July 26, 2010
  8. ↑ Howard Fischer (July 23, 2010). "Judge: State can't cancel benefits of gay employees". East Valley Tribune . Retrieved 2010-07-26.
  9. ↑ Google Scholar: Order and Opinion, Collins v. Brewer, July 23, 2010, accessed July 8, 2012
  10. ↑ Geidner, Chris (September 6, 2011). "Ninth Circuit Keeps Arizona Law Ending Same-Sex Partner Health Benefits on Hold". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on 2013-12-28. Retrieved December 27, 2013.
  11. ↑ Ninth Circuit: Opinion, accessed July 8, 2012
  12. ↑ Ninth Circuit: Order, Diaz v. Brewer, April 3, 2012, accessed July 8, 2012
  13. ↑ Lambda Legal: Diaz v. Brewer (formerly Collins v. Brewer), accessed July 8, 2012
  14. ↑ Brewer v. Diaz, petition for certiorari, accessed July 16, 2012
  15. ↑ Johnson, Chris (June 27, 2013). "Supreme Court won't hear Brewer challenge to DP benefits". Metro Weekly. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Court Certifies Lambda Legal Benefits Case as Class Action" . Retrieved December 26, 2013.
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.