Tanco v. Haslam

Last updated
Tanco v. Haslam
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 28, 2015
Full case nameValeria Tanco and Sophie Jesty, Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura, and Johno Espejo and Matthew Mansell v. William Edward "Bill" Haslam, as Governor of the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity; Larry Martin, as Commissioner of the Department of Finance and Administration, in his official capacity, and Robert Cooper, as Attorney General & Reporter of the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity
Related cases Bourke v. Beshear , DeBoer v. Snyder , Obergefell v. Hodges , Love v. Beshear .
Case history
PriorTanco v. Haslam, 7 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. Tenn. 2014); stay granted, No. 14-5297 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2014); reversed sub. nom., DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1040 (2015).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

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. [1] The court found the equal protection analysis used in Bourke v. Beshear , a case dealing with a comparable Kentucky statute "especially persuasive." [2] 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.

Contents

On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated this case with three others and agreed to review the case. Oral arguments were heard on April 28, 2015. [3] [4]

District court proceedings

On October 21, 2013, local attorneys supported by the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of four Tennessee same-sex couples seeking to require Tennessee to recognize their marriages. They argued that the state's policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and violates their rights to due process and equal protection, as well as their right to travel. [5] The suit named as defendants Governor Bill Haslam and 3 other state officials. [6] One of the couples married in New York left the case and the number of defendants was reduced by one.

Preliminary injunction granted

On March 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples. [1] [7] She wrote: "At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs' marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history." [8] [9]

Stay denied

The state immediately filed a motion to stay this ruling, but on March 20, Judge Trauger denied the request, reasoning that unlike the stay ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kitchen v. Herbert "the court's order does not open the floodgates for same-sex couples to marry in Tennessee ... [and] applies only to the three same-sex couples at issue in this case." [10] The Tennessee Attorney General filed an interlocutory appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the circuit court to stay the injunction that forces the state to recognize plaintiffs' marriages. The attorney general cited the stay granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in January in another same-sex marriage case, Kitchen v. Herbert . [11]

Court of Appeals proceedings

On April 25, 2014, the Sixth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam order, issued a stay of the district court's decision in Tanco, and ordered that the case be assigned to a panel of judges on the Sixth Circuit for expedited consideration on the merits. The effect of this order is to stay the preliminary injunction awarded to plaintiffs by the district court, meaning that the state of Tennessee will no longer have to recognize the legally consummated same-sex marriages of the six named plaintiffs in the Tanco case until after the appeal is decided. The Sixth Circuit said that its decision to stay the order is based on the "unsettled" nature of the law, as well as the public interest and the interests of the parties. [12]

The Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 6. [13] On November 6, the Sixth Circuit ruled 2–1 that Tennessee's ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitution. [14] It said it was bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 action in a similar case, Baker v. Nelson , which dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question." Writing for the majority, Judge Jeffrey Sutton also dismissed the arguments made on behalf of same-sex couples in this case: "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters." Dissenting, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey wrote: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens." [15]

Supreme Court proceedings

On November 14, the same-sex couples filed an application for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. [16] They asked the court to consider whether the U.S. Constitution protects a "fundamental right to marry", whether Tennessee's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unlawfully restricts their right to travel, and whether the Supreme Court's dismissal of Baker v. Nelson (1972) is binding precedent in this case. [17] Tennessee officials filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs' petition on December 15. [18]

On January 16, 2015, the United States Supreme Court consolidated this case with three others and agreed to review the case. It set a briefing schedule to be completed April 17. [19] The court asked the parties to address two questions: "1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?" [20] [21] The plaintiff-petitioners told the court that Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of the law firm of Ropes & Gray would represent them at oral argument. [22]

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case, which had been consolidated with three other cases from Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky, in Obergefell v. Hodges . In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, the Supreme Court held that state bans on same-sex marriage are a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [23] This ruling extended the right to same-sex marriage to the entire United States and required that states recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. The ruling continued Justice Anthony Kennedy's legacy as a top jurist for gay rights in America, having now written four high court opinion favoring gays and lesbians; June 26, 2015 was the 2-year anniversary of the decision in United States v. Windsor , which overturned part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the 12th anniversary of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas , which overturned anti-sodomy laws in the United States. Kennedy issued his first major gay rights decision in 1996 in Romer v. Evans .

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage in Florida has been legal 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.

Same-sex marriage in Colorado has been legally recognized 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, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

Same-sex marriage in Michigan has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. The state had banned recognition of same-sex unions in any form since a popular vote added an amendment to the Constitution of Michigan in 2004. 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 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.

<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.

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.

Same-sex marriage in Tennessee has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Governor Bill Haslam quickly announced that the state would abide by the court's decision, and same-sex couples began to marry in Tennessee. Previously, Tennessee had banned same-sex marriage both by statute and its State Constitution.

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.

Same-sex marriage in Kentucky has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court 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.

Same-sex marriage in Mississippi has been legal since June 26, 2015. On November 25, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled that Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Enforcement of his ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. On June 29, Attorney General Jim Hood ordered clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On July 1, the Fifth Circuit lifted its stay and Judge Reeves ordered an end to Mississippi's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban. However, until July 2, 2015, several counties in Mississippi continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses, including DeSoto, Jasper, Jones, Newton, Pontotoc, Simpson and Yalobusha.

Same-sex marriage in Missouri has been legal 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>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>

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>Baskin v. Bogan</i>

Baskin v. Bogan, the lead Indiana case challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, was filed in federal district court on March 12, 2014, naming several government officials as defendants. Chief Judge Richard L. Young found for the plaintiffs on June 25. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court ruling in a unanimous decision on September 4.

<i>Wolf v. Walker</i>

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. And 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.

<i>Burns v. Hickenlooper</i>

Burns v. Hickenlooper is a lawsuit filed on July 1, 2014, in federal district court in Colorado, challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the fundamental right of marriage. The defendants agreed with the substance of the plaintiffs' case, but asked the district court to stay implementation of any order requiring Colorado to alter enforcement of its ban pending the outcome of other litigation. After the district court declined to grant more than a one-month stay on July 23, the state's governor and attorney general appealed and won a stay from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21. Following U.S. Supreme Court action in other cases, on October 8 they asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss their appeal and lift the stay, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in Colorado.

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.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States 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 to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty 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 all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), which was consolidated with three other same-sex marriage cases from the other states in the Sixth Circuit: Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky). On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal in those states, and setting a precedent for the entire nation. All four states complied with the ruling the same day it was issued before the mandate was actually issued. Every state in the circuit had a district court ruling against their states' ban, but they were eventually stayed pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit consists of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. On August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for same-sex marriage cases from each state within the circuit. On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the states' same-sex marriage bans, reversing the district courts' rulings that struck them down. The Sixth Circuit was the first and only circuit court since the landmark ruling United States v. Windsor to uphold the constitutionality of states' same-sex marriage bans which caused a circuit split.

References

  1. 1 2 Tanco v. Haslam, 7F. Supp. 3d759 ( M.D. Tenn. 2014).
  2. ↑ Tanco, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 769.
  3. ↑ Singh, Tejinder (April 28, 2015). ""Super-cuts" from same-sex marriage arguments". SCOTUSblog.
  4. ↑ Gerstein, Josh (April 28, 2015). "The 8 most awkward moments in the Supreme Court's gay-marriage arguments". Politico .
  5. ↑ "4 same-sex couples sue Tennessee over gay marriage". USA Today. October 21, 2013. Retrieved January 16, 2014.
  6. ↑ Complaint, Tanco v. Haslam, No.3:13-cv-01159 , 1(M.D. Tenn.Oct. 21, 2013).
  7. ↑ Snow, Justin (March 14, 2014). "Tennessee ordered to recognize same-sex couples' marriages". Metro Weekly. Archived from the original on March 15, 2014. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  8. ↑ Tanco, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 772.
  9. ↑ Hall, Heidi (March 18, 2014). "TN attorney general to appeal same-sex marriage ruling". WBIR. Retrieved March 19, 2014.
  10. ↑ Tanco v. Haslam, No.3:13-cv-01159 , 78(M.D. Tenn.Mar. 20, 2014).
  11. ↑ Hall, Heidi (March 18, 2014). "TN attorney general to appeal same-sex marriage ruling". WBIR. Retrieved March 19, 2014.
  12. ↑ Guy and Clay, Circuit Judges, Bertlesman, District Judge (April 25, 2014). "Order, Tanco v. Haslam" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Retrieved May 1, 2014.
  13. ↑ Keen, Lisa (August 7, 2014). "Sixth Circuit GOP judges: Why not let the voters decide who gets to marry?". Keen News Service. Retrieved August 14, 2014.
  14. ↑ DeBoer v. Snyder , 772F.3d388 ( 6th Cir. 2014).
  15. ↑ Geidner, Chris (November 6, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Upholds Four States' Same-Sex Marriage Bans". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved November 6, 2014.
  16. ↑ Snow, Justin (November 14, 2014). "Same-sex marriage back before the Supreme Court". Metro Weekly. Retrieved November 14, 2014.
  17. ↑ "Tennessee Marriage Petition". Scribd.com. Retrieved November 14, 2014.
  18. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (December 15, 2014). "Tennessee opposes same-sex marriage review". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved December 15, 2014.
  19. ↑ Geidner, Chris (January 16, 2015). "Supreme Court Will Hear Four Cases Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Bans". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  20. ↑ "(ORDER LIST: 574 U.S.)" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court: SCOTUS Blog. January 16, 2015. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  21. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (January 16, 2015). "Court will rule on same-sex marriage". U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  22. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (March 31, 2015). "Lawyers for same-sex marriage plea named". U.S. Supreme Court: SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved March 31, 2015.
  23. ↑ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
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.