Latta v. Otter

Last updated

Latta v. Otter
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
No. 14-35420 and 35421
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ArguedSeptember 8, 2014
Case history
Prior action(s)U.S. Ninth Circuit
  • Aug. 19, 2014: Petition for initial en banc hearing denied.
  • May 20, 2014: Stay during appeal ordered.

U.S. District of Idaho

  • May 13, 2014: Judgment for plaintiffs, 2014 WL 1909999.
Holding
Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJudges Stephen Reinhardt, Ronald M. Gould, Marsha Berzon
Case opinions
MajorityReinhardt, joined by Gould, Berzon
Keywords
Marriage, Equal Protection, Same-sex marriage, Sexual Orientation

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 .

Contents

The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on September 8 [1] and affirmed the District Court's ruling on October 7. State officials requested and received an emergency stay of the Ninth Circuit's ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8, which Justice Anthony Kennedy vacated on October 10, denying the requested stay.

Introduction

In November 2013, four Idaho lesbian couples filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court, Latta v. Otter, challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. They were represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. [2] One couple was married in California in 2008, another in New York in 2011. Two of the four couples were raising a child. [3] They named as defendants Governor Butch Otter and Ada County Clerk Chris Rich. [4] The parties are disputing Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's attempt to intervene on behalf of the state. [5] Both parties asked the court for summary judgment.

U.S. district court ruling

Latta v. Otter was heard before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale on May 5, 2014 and she issued her ruling on May 13. [6] The decision granted the plaintiff same-sex couples' motion for summary judgment, declared Idaho marriage laws that ban same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and enjoined state officials from enforcing any law to the extent it restricts same-sex couples from marrying or from having their marriages recognized.

In her decision, Judge Dale dispensed with Baker v. Nelson : "The Supreme Court's due process and equal protection jurisprudence has developed significantly in the four decades after Baker, and, in last year's Windsor decision, the Court dramatically changed tone with regard to laws that withhold marriage benefits from same-sex couples." She argued individual liberty and Fourteenth Amendment protection: "An individual's protected liberties include certain fundamental rights of personhood. These rights center on the most significant decisions of a lifetime—whom to marry, whether to have children, and how to raise and educate children. ... rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect."

She applied these rights and liberties to same-sex couples: "More recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that gay and lesbian individuals do not forfeit their constitutional liberties simply because of their sexual orientation...the Supreme Court's marriage cases demonstrate that the right to marry is an individual right, belonging to all. If every individual enjoys a constitutional right to marry, what is the substance of that right for gay or lesbian individuals who cannot marry their partners of choice?" (internal citations omitted). [7] [8]

Dale summarized by stating:

Idaho's Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho's Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.

Dale issued an injunction prohibiting the state from denying recognition to same-sex marriages, effective May 16. [9]

U.S. Court of Appeals activity

The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and on May 15 a three-judge panel issued a temporary stay of Judge Dale's injunction. [10] On May 20, the panel granted a stay during appeal. U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz concurred, writing that "solely because I believe that the Supreme Court, in Herbert v. Kitchen ... has virtually instructed courts of appeals to grant stays in the circumstances before us today. If we were writing on a cleaner state, I would conclude that application of the familiar factors ... counsels against the stay requested by the Idaho appellants." [11]

On May 30, state defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit to hear the case before an en banc panel of 11 justices rather than a 3-judge panel because any ruling "will carry profound legal and broader social consequences". The state also argued that there is a circuit split in the U.S. Courts of Appeals with respect to the level of scrutiny used when deciding cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation, that plaintiffs will argue heightened scrutiny, based on the Ninth Circuit decision in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs. , while the other circuits have applied the less restrictive standard of scrutiny called "rational basis review." [12] On August 19, the Ninth Circuit denied the state's request for an initial hearing en banc. [13] It scheduled oral argument for September 8 before Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Ronald M. Gould, and Marsha Berzon. [14]

Because of public interest in this and other same-sex marriage cases under Ninth Circuit jurisdiction, the court set up a web site where orders and filings in these cases can be downloaded as they become available. [15]

The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on September 8. [16] It upheld the district court's ruling on October 7. [17]

The Ninth Circuit's order implementing its decision was challenged by Idaho officials in the early morning hours of October 8. They asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay while they pursued further litigation, and Justice Anthony Kennedy granted a temporary stay within hours. [18] The plaintiffs responded on October 9. [19] On October 10, after Justice Kennedy withdrew his emergency stay in Latta, [20] Idaho Governor Butch Otter announced the state would no longer attempt to preserve the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. [21]

Also on October 10, the Latta plaintiffs asked the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay of the district court's order that it had imposed on May 20. [22] The Ninth Circuit gave the parties until October 13 to reply. [23] On October 13, the Ninth Circuit rejected the contrary arguments and lifted its stay of the district court's order enjoining Idaho officials from enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriage, [24] effective 9 a.m. PDT October 15. [25]

On October 21, Governor Otter asked the Ninth Circuit to re-hear the case en banc. [26] Having received no response, both he and the state filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on December 30, 2014, and January 2, 2015, respectively. [27] [28] The Ninth Circuit denied the request for rehearing en banc on January 9, 2015. [29] Latta asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case. That court, on June 26 ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. On June 30, the Supreme Court denied that certiorari request. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

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.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had already made similar rulings with respect to such bans in Utah on June 25 and Oklahoma on July 18, which are binding precedents on courts in Colorado. On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Tenth Circuit cases, and the Tenth Circuit lifted its stay. On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

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.

Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since a federal district 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.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-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 California 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.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in 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. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska held on October 12 in the case of Hamby v. Parnell that Alaska's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On October 15, state officials obtained a two-day stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend on October 17. Although Alaska is one of a few states which enforces a three-day waiting period between requesting a marriage license and conducting a marriage ceremony, at least one same-sex couple had the waiting period waived immediately after the district court's ruling. They married in Utqiagvik on October 13 and were the first same-sex couple to marry in Alaska.

<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.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Idaho since October 15, 2014. In May 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho found Idaho's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in the case of Latta v. Otter, but enforcement of that ruling was stayed pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling on October 7, 2014, though the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the ruling, which was not lifted until October 15, 2014.

<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.

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.

<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.

<i>Wright v. Arkansas</i>

Wright v. Arkansas is a same-sex marriage case pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court. An Arkansas Circuit Court judge ruled the Arkansas Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on May 9, 2014. He clarified his opinion to include state statutes that interfered with allowing or recognizing same-sex marriage as well. The state Supreme Court issued a stay in the case on May 16, 2014, but approximately 450 same-sex marriage licenses were issued before the stay went into effect.

<i>Whitewood v. Wolf</i>

Whitewood v. Wolf is the federal lawsuit that successfully challenged the Pennsylvania Marriage Laws, as amended in 1996 to ban same-sex marriage. The district court's decision in May 2014 held that the Marriage Laws violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Same-sex couples immediately sought and received marriage licenses and the decision was not appealed. One county clerk sought repeatedly without success to intervene to defend the law.

<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>Bostic v. Schaefer</i> United States federal lawsuit challenging range same-sex marriage bans

Bostic v. Schaefer 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.

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.

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. ↑ "Ninth Circuit destroys arguments for banning same-sex marriage". MSNBC .
  2. ↑ "Four Idaho couples file federal lawsuit challenging state's gay marriage ban". LGBTQNation. November 8, 2013.
  3. ↑ Popkey, Dan (November 8, 2013). "Boise couples sue to overturn ban on same-sex marriage". Idaho Statesman. Retrieved January 16, 2014.
  4. ↑ "Idaho AG motions to dismiss same-sex marriage case". SF Gate. January 9, 2014. Retrieved January 16, 2014.
  5. ↑ "Idaho's gay marriage ban: Couples ask judge to block state's intervention". The Oregonian. December 26, 2013. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
  6. ↑ "Federal court strikes down Idaho ban on same-sex marriage – LGBTQ Nation". LGBTQ Nation. lgbtqnation.com. May 13, 2014. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
  7. ↑ Boone, Rebecca (February 19, 2014). "Idaho Couples Ask Judge To Rule On Gay Marriage". Huffington Post. Retrieved February 20, 2014.
  8. ↑ Dale, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge (May 13, 2014). "Memorandum Decision and Order, Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD" (PDF). U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
  9. ↑ Ryan J. Reilly (May 14, 2014). "Another Federal Judge Trolls Scalia While Striking Down Gay Marriage Ban". huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
  10. ↑ Boone, Rebecca (May 15, 2014). "Federal appeals court puts Idaho gay marriage ruling on hold pending appeal". lgbtqnation.com. Associated Press. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
  11. ↑ Leavy, Callahan, Hurwitz (U.S. Circuit Judges) (May 20, 2014). "Order Granting Stay, Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, 14-35421" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . PACER ID: 9100459. Retrieved June 2, 2014.
  12. ↑ Stewart, Monte (Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant) (May 30, 2014). "Appellant Governor Otter's Petition for Initial Hearing En Banc, Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . No. Docket Entry 16-1. PACER ID 9114268. Archived from the original on June 6, 2014. Retrieved June 3, 2014.
  13. ↑ Otter v. Latta, Order, August 19, 2014
  14. ↑ Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Oral Argument Notice, accessed September 1, 2014
  15. ↑ "US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit". Archived from the original on May 20, 2014. Retrieved June 10, 2014.
  16. ↑ Margolin, Emma (September 8, 2014). "Ninth Circuit destroys arguments for banning same-sex marriage". MSNBC. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
  17. ↑ Snow, Justin (October 7, 2014). "Federal appeals court finds Idaho, Nevada same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional". MetroWeekly. Retrieved October 7, 2014.
  18. ↑ "U.S. justice temporarily blocks Idaho gay marriage ruling". Reuters. October 8, 2014. Retrieved October 8, 2014.
  19. ↑ "Respondents' Opposition to Emergency Application to stay, October 9, 2014". Scribd.com. Retrieved October 9, 2014.
  20. ↑ "Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Same-Sex Marriages in Idaho". New York Times. October 10, 2014. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
  21. ↑ Sewell, Cynthia (October 10, 2014). "Otter says state should comply with gay-marriage order when it comes again". Idaho Statesman. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
  22. ↑ "Motion to Dissolve Stay of District Court Order" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved October 11, 2014.
  23. ↑ "Order setting response to motion, October 10, 2014" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appelas for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved October 11, 2014.
  24. ↑ "Order dissolving stay, October 13, 2014" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Retrieved October 13, 2014.[ permanent dead link ]
  25. ↑ "OPINION re Order" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. October 15, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2014.
  26. ↑ Snow, Justin (October 22, 2014). "Idaho asks federal appeals court to review same-sex marriage decision". Metro Weekly. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
  27. ↑ "Otter v. Latta Petition for a writ of certiorari". Scribd.com. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
  28. ↑ "State of Idaho v. Latta State of Idaho's appeal in marriage case". Scribd.com. U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
  29. ↑ "Appellate court won't reconsider Idaho gay marriage". Washington Times. Associated Press. January 9, 2015. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
  30. ↑ "Order list - June 30, 2015" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 30, 2015. Retrieved June 30, 2015.
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.