Whitewood v. Wolf

Last updated

Whitewood v. Wolf
MD pa seal.jpg
District Court Docket: 1:13-cv-1861
Court of Appeals Docket: 14-3048
Court U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Full case nameDeb Whitewood, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael Wolf, in his official capacity as Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Health, et al.,
Defendants.
DecidedMay 20, 2014
Citation(s)992 F. Supp. 2d 410
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Petition for rehearing denied, No. 14-3048 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2014), application for stay denied sub nom. Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 (U.S. Sup. Ct. July 9, 2014), denial of intervenor status summarily affirmed, appeal ordered dismissed, sub nom. Whitewood v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Health, No. 14-3048 (3d Cir. July 3, 2014); intervenor status denied (M.D. Pa. June 18, 2014)
Holding
State enjoined from enforcing same-sex marriage ban; such bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting John E. Jones III, U.S.D.J.

Whitewood v. Wolf is the federal lawsuit that successfully challenged the Pennsylvania Marriage Laws, [lower-alpha 1] 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.

Contents

Lawsuit

On July 9, 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor , the ACLU filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of 23 plaintiffs—10 couples, 2 of their children, and a widow—seeking to overturn Pennsylvania's 1996 statutory ban on same-sex marriage. [1] The case, originally Whitewood v. Corbett, was assigned to Judge John E. Jones III. [2] On July 11, Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a named defendant, said that she would not defend the statute as she "endorse[d] equality and anti-discrimination laws" and that the statute was "wholly unconstitutional". [3] On July 30, Governor Tom Corbett announced he would defend the statute. [4]

Pretrial motions

All parties agreed to having Corbett's name removed as a defendant. [5] The remaining named defendants are the state health and revenue secretaries, and the Bucks County register of wills. [4] On November 15, Judge Jones rejected the state defendants' motion to dismiss the suit. The judge found that while Baker v. Nelson was precedent, it did not require him to find that denial of marriage equality is outside federal jurisdiction because "[t]he jurisprudence of equal protection and substantive due process has undergone what can only be characterized as a sea change since 1972", foremost being the recent Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor. [6] In early December, the state's attorneys asked Jones to allow them to ask the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on whether Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent. Judge Jones denied this interlocutory appeal on December 17, writing "this Court is rightfully in position to consider and assess such doctrinal advancements [since Baker]." [7] [8]

On April 21, 2014, plaintiff same-sex couples filed a motion for summary judgment in Whitewood v. Wolf, which would allow the court to rule solely on the briefs without a trial. The state defendants agreed to dispense with trial as well. [9]

U.S. district court ruling

On May 20, 2014, Judge Jones ruled in Whitewood v. Wolf that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. [10] He applied intermediate scrutiny and declared that the ban violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. [11] The ruling was not stayed and same-sex couples in Pennsylvania could request and receive marriage licenses immediately and marry after a mandatory 3-day waiting period. [12] [13] Anticipating legal maneuvers to stay Jones' ruling, dozens of same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses the same day and some obtained waivers of the state's three-day waiting period. At least one couple managed to celebrate their wedding on May 21. [14] [15]

Pennsylvania's Republican Governor Tom Corbett announced on May 21 that he would not appeal Judge Jones' decision, effectively making Pennsylvania the 19th state to recognize same-sex marriage. [16]

Proposed intervention

On June 6, the Schuylkill County court clerk responsible for responding to marriage license applications, Theresa Santai-Gaffney, filed a motion before Judge Jones to allow her to intervene in the case in her official capacity. She wanted the court to stay its decision in Whitewood v. Wolf and to allow her to appeal it. [17] Judge Jones denied the motion on June 18, lamenting that a private citizen would use her public office to make a "wholly disingenuous" intervention. [18]

Santai-Gaffney immediately appealed the denial of her intervention to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and asked it to stay the lower court's ruling. She argued that the Supreme Court's order in Herbert v. Kitchen , 134 S.Ct. 893 (2014), is precedent for a stay, that she is likely to succeed on the merits, that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, and that the public interest is served by preventing same-sex marriage. [19] The Third Circuit immediately ordered the case sent to a panel to determine if summary action was warranted. [20]

Court of Appeals dismissal

On July 3, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit summarily affirmed Judge Jones' dismissal of the Santai-Gaffney's motion to intervene in Whitewood and ordered her appeal dismissed. U.S. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz, in a two-sentence order, said such dismissal was warranted "[f]or essentially the reasons set forth in the Opinion of the District Court." Santai-Gaffney's lawyer then said "Our plan is to file something with the U.S. Supreme Court... The people of Pennsylvania deserve to have adequate review of this law." [21] [22]

U.S. Supreme Court action

After the Third Circuit ruling, Santai-Gaffney applied for a stay of judgment from U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, docketed sub nom. Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19 (July 7, 2014). In her application, the clerk attempted to overcome not only the questions of her interest in intervening and standing to appeal, but that she, as a public official, is suffering irreparable harm. Supreme Court rules also require it probable that four Justices grant certiorari on any question presented in order for a stay to be granted. The counsel of record in clerk Santai-Gaffney's litigation, as listed in court filings, is the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit organization. [23] On July 9, Justice Alito denied the clerk's application for a stay, [24] referencing National Organization for Marriage v. Geiger . [25]

Petition for rehearing

On July 17, 2014, Santai-Gaffney filed a petition in the Third Circuit to rehear her motion to intervene, or to rehear it en banc. With no judge that concurred in denying the original motion asking for rehearing, and all active judges in the circuit voting against, on August 4, 2014, the petition for rehearing was denied. [26] [27]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ 23 Pa. C.S. § 1102, as amended in 1996, defined marriage as a "civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife."
    Furthermore, 23 Pa. C.S. § 1704 was added and read: "It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth."

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.

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, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Colorado.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Pennsylvania since May 20, 2014, when a U.S. federal district court judge ruled that the state's 1996 statutory ban on recognizing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Governor Tom Corbett announced the following day that he would not appeal the decision. Pennsylvania had previously prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage by statute since 1996, but had never added such a ban to its State Constitution.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Indiana since October 6, 2014. The state had previously restricted marriage to different-sex couples by statute in 1986. By legislation passed in 1997, it denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions. A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Baskin v. Bogan, won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014. Until the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in Baskin on September 4. A ruling in Bowling v. Pence stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Pennsylvania</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Pennsylvania. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. Pennsylvania was the final Mid-Atlantic state without same-sex marriage, indeed lacking any form of same-sex recognition law until its statutory ban was overturned on May 20, 2014.

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>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 in the case of Latta v. Otter found Idaho's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, 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.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized 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. 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 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.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Mississippi 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 comply with the court ruling and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Fifth Circuit lifted its stay on July 1, 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 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>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>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. ↑ "A.C.L.U. Lawsuit Aims to Overturn Pennsylvania's Ban on Gay Marriage". New York Times. July 9, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  2. ↑ Lord, Rich (July 10, 2013). "Judge named to handle case trying to legalize gay marriage in Pennsylvania". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  3. ↑ Eilperin, Juliet (July 11, 2013). "Pa. attorney general says she won't defend state's gay marriage ban". Washington Post. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  4. 1 2 Lindstrom, Natasha (July 30, 2013). "Corbett to defend Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban". Herald-Standard (Uniontown). Retrieved July 30, 2013.
  5. ↑ Lord, Rich (November 1, 2013). "Corbett dropped in Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved December 2, 2013.
  6. ↑ Warden, Amy (November 17, 2013). "Judge clears way for trial on Pa. gay marriage ban". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  7. ↑ Spencer, Saranac Hale (December 9, 2013). "Corbett pushing for Third Circuit to clarify law in gay marriage case". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved December 9, 2013.
  8. ↑ Jones, U.S. District Judge (December 17, 2013). "Memorandum and Order (denying interlocutory appeal), Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv1861". U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved April 30, 2014.
  9. ↑ ACLU of Pennsylvania (April 21, 2014). "Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 13-CV-1861-JEJ" (PDF). U.S. Middle District of Pennsylvania, via ACLU.org. Retrieved April 25, 2014.
  10. ↑ "Federal judge strikes down gay marriage ban in Pennsylvania". Reuters. May 20, 2014. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
  11. ↑ Jones, U.S. District Judge (May 20, 2014), "Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv1861 (See pp. 40-41)" (PDF), U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, archived from the original (PDF) on May 21, 2014, retrieved August 21, 2014
  12. ↑ Fox News (May 20, 2014). "Pa. same-sex couples rush to get marriage licenses after judge overturns marriage ban" . Retrieved May 21, 2014.
  13. ↑ Pink News (May 25, 2014). "US: Couples begin to marry in Pennsylvania as same-sex marriage ruling comes into effect".
  14. ↑ Riely, Kaitlynn (May 21, 2014). "Allegheny County marries its first same-sex couple amid smiles, tears". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved July 25, 2014.
  15. ↑ Madej, Patricia (May 23, 2014). "Wedding bells ring at art museum steps for same-sex couple". Philadelphia Magazine. Retrieved July 25, 2014.
  16. ↑ "Pennsylvania governor: I won't appeal court's gay marriage ruling". The Guardian. Associated Press. May 21, 2014.
  17. ↑ Conrad, Jeffery (Attorney for Proposed Intervenor) (June 6, 2014). "Motion for Intervention, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-CV-1861". U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania . via scribd.com. Retrieved June 9, 2014.
  18. ↑ John E. Jones III (June 18, 2014). "Memorandum and order, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-CV-1861" (PDF). Court. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 22, 2014. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
  19. ↑ Dalton, J. Caleb (Attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom) (June 18, 2014). "Proposed Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant Theresa Santai-Gaffney's Motion for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal, Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 14-3048". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . Scribd.com. PACER Document 3111654843.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ↑ Waldron, Marcia (Clerk of the Court) (June 18, 2014). "Order (for Determination of Summary Action), Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dept. of Health, No. 14-3048". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . Scribd.com. PACER Document 3111654697.
  21. ↑ Fuentes; Jordan; Shwartz, U.S. Circuit Judges (July 3, 2014). "Order, Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dep't of Health, No. 14-3048". U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . PACER Document 3111670016.
  22. ↑ Marchiano, Amy (July 5, 2014). "County official vows appeal after same-sex marriage setback". The Standard Speaker. Hazelton, PA.
  23. ↑ Babione, Byron J. (Attorney for Petitioner) (July 3, 2014). "Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal, Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, No. 14A19" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court .
  24. ↑ Associated Press (July 9, 2014). "Justice Alito denies clerk's bid to halt same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania". LBGTQ Nation.com.
  25. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States: No. 14A19, Santai-Gaffney v. Whitewood, accessed July 10, 2014
  26. ↑ Middleton, Josh (July 18, 2014). "Theresa Santai-Gaffney Strikes Again, Filing an 'En Banc' Motion With the Third Circuit". Philadelphia Magazine. Retrieved July 24, 2014.
  27. ↑ Shwartz, Patty, Circuit Judge (August 4, 2014). "Sur Petition for Rehearing Whitewood v. Secretary Pa. Dep't of Health, No. 14-3048" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . PACER Document 3111697838. Scribd.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 13, 2014. Retrieved August 21, 2014.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
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.