District court Kitchen v. Herbert

1 district court

1.1 ruling

1.1.1 states rights vs. individual rights
1.1.2 baker v. nelson not binding
1.1.3 due process
1.1.4 equal protection

1.1.4.1 higher levels of scrutiny


1.1.5 conclusion


1.2 response

district court
ruling

on december 20, 2013, judge robert j. shelby of u.s. district court utah ruled in favor of plaintiffs. wrote:

utah s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts united states constitution s guarantees of equal protection , due process under law. state s current laws deny gay , lesbian citizens fundamental right marry and, in doing, demean dignity of these same-sex couples no rational reason. accordingly, court finds these laws unconstitutional.

states rights vs. individual rights

the ruling stated supreme court has held fourteenth amendment requires individual rights take precedence on states rights these 2 interests in conflict, , while utah has right regulate marriage, must nevertheless in way not infringe constitutional rights of citizens, citing loving v. virginia , united states v. windsor.

the court noted while state electorate had voted in popular referendum on issue, person s fundamental rights may not submitted vote, citing w. va. state bd. of educ. v. barnette.

baker v. nelson not binding

baker v. nelson 1971 minnesota supreme court decision upheld state s denial of marriage license male couple. u.s. supreme court dismissed appeal in baker want of substantial federal question. courts have relied on dismissal precedent when considering challenges same-sex marriage bans. district court in utah ruled summary dismissal not binding when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise , citing hicks v. miranda (1975). noted supreme court recognized in romer v. evans (1996) constitution protects individuals discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. district court held reasoning in united states v. windsor highly relevant , therefore significant doctrinal development.

due process

the ruling affirmed marriage well-established fundamental right , liberty protected due process under fourteenth amendment. court wrote regulation of constitutionally protected decisions, such ... whom [a person] shall marry, must predicated on legitimate state concerns other disagreement choice individual has made , quoting hodgson v. minnesota. while utah asserted plaintiffs still @ liberty marry person of opposite sex, court held utah deny gays , lesbians right choose same-sex spouse renders fundamental right marry meaningless.

the court held requiring ability naturally reproduce qualification marry demeans dignity ... of many opposite-sex couples unable reproduce or choose not have children. under state s reasoning, post-menopausal woman or infertile man not have fundamental right marry because or not have capacity procreate. court affirmed constitutionally protected right not procreate , referencing griswold v. connecticut. court held same-sex marriage , interracial marriage, held in loving v. virginia, not new rights manifestations of 1 right—the right marry—applied people different sexual identities. court added constitution allows different outcomes when principles operate on new set of facts unknown . quoted lawrence v. texas: [t]imes can blind truths , later generations can see laws once thought necessary , proper in fact serve oppress .

because utah s ban on same-sex marriage restricted fundamental right, court applied test of strict scrutiny , found utah has not shown law narrowly tailored meet rational, less compelling, reason why plaintiffs should denied right marry.

equal protection

when state violates equal protection excluding group benefits, court stated must find rational connection state s legitimate interests in order uphold exclusion, citing loving v. virginia , several other cases. utah cited legitimate government interests be: responsible procreation, optimal child-rearing, proceeding caution, , preserving traditional definition of marriage.

the court stated defies reason permitting same-sex couples marry affect number of opposite-sex couples ... have children outside of marriage , citing hollingsworth v. perry. regarding utah s optimal, biological, , ideal goal of child-rearing, court noted state has presented no evidence opposite-sex couples base decisions having children on ability of same-sex couples marry , quoted united states v. windsor, holding [t]he law in question makes more difficult children [of same-sex couples] understand integrity , closeness of own family , concord other families in community , in daily lives , brings financial harm them. court held proceeding caution because of unsupported fears , speculations gay marriage not permissible basis treating gay people differently, adding process of allowing same-sex marriage straightforward , requires no change state tax, divorce, or inheritance laws.

regarding preservation of tradition, court held [n]either antiquity of practice nor fact of steadfast legislative , judicial adherence through centuries insulates constitutional attack, quoting williams v. illinois. court noted traditional view of marriage has in past led government enforcement of stereotypes women , moral disapproval of interracial marriage, citing lawrence v. texas. case rejected moral disapproval legitimate state interest, , justice scalia, in dissent, wrote majority s decision made impossible avoid same-sex marriage, because preserving traditional institution of marriage more pleasant way describe moral disapproval . district court noted decision recognize gay marriages expands religious freedom because ... congregations in utah desire perform same-sex wedding[s] , able so, while others may continue define marriage themselves.

in summary, court held state unable articulate specific connection between prohibition of same-sex marriage , of stated legitimate interests. @ most, state asserted: don t know. court did not find utah s argument persuasive , ruled prohibition of same-sex marriage failed rational basis review.

higher levels of scrutiny

citing loving v. virginia, court argued did not feel need apply intermediate scrutiny on basis of sex discrimination because amendment 3 fails under deferential level of review. on question of discrimination based on sexual orientation, court bound tenth circuit precedent in price-cornelison v. brooks sexual orientation not protected class, warrant heightened scrutiny . regarding test of careful consideration based on louisville gas & elec. co. v. coleman , emphasized in united states v. windsor, court held avowed purpose , practical effect of utah s amendment 3 impose disadvantage, separate status, , stigma, court unsure if qualified discriminations of unusual character require careful consideration. court wary of applying test in absence of more explicit guidance u.s. supreme court.

conclusion

in conclusion of ruling, court found utah s arguments identical virginia made against interracial marriage in 1967 in loving v. virginia;

anti-miscegenation laws in virginia , elsewhere designed to, , did, deprive targeted minority of full measure of human dignity , liberty denying them freedom marry partner of choice. utah s amendment 3 achieves same result.

response

governor herbert stated, disappointed activist federal judge attempting override of people of utah. working legal counsel , acting attorney general determine best course defend traditional marriage within borders of utah. church of jesus christ of latter-day saints stated, church has been consistent in support of traditional marriage while teaching people should treated respect. ruling district court work way through judicial process. continue believe voters in utah did right thing providing clear direction in state constitution marriage should between man , woman , hopeful view validated higher court.

because state s lawyers had not filed motion stay in district court time of ruling, of utah s county clerks began issuing marriage licenses same-sex couples. state senator jim dabakis , partner of 27 years among first same-sex couples marry in state. several hundred people, gay , straight, crowded outside salt lake city , county building on lawns of washington square on night of december 23 cheer , laugh , listen band music , speakers celebrating state s first same-sex marriages. on december 24, governor ordered state agencies comply ruling, , december 26, utah counties issuing marriage licenses same-sex couples. within week of ruling, utah had issued 900 marriage licenses same-sex couples.

following ruling, state filed both notice of appeal tenth circuit , requests in both district court , tenth circuit emergency stays stop additional marriage licenses being issued. on december 22, tenth circuit denied granting stay motion before district court decide on own stay. [the defendants] not seek stay pending appeal, rather stay pending district court s decision on stay motion. appellate , local rules contemplate motion stay pending appeal. on december 23, judge shelby denied request put marriages on hold, allowing state continue issue same-sex marriage licenses. on december 24, two-judge panel of tenth circuit court again denied state s request stay. utah s attorney general s office ask supreme court stay on december 31.

justice sonia sotomayor, supreme court s circuit justice tenth circuit, referred stay request full supreme court , on january 6, without noting dissents colleagues, issued stay pending final disposition of appeal tenth circuit. stay reinstated ban on same-sex marriage, , utah returned practice of treating married same-sex couples if unmarried. on january 10, u.s. attorney general eric holder announced federal government recognize marriages of same-sex couples married in utah between december 20, 2013, , january 6, 2014. utah state tax commission, independent state agency, decided married same-sex couples eligible file joint state income tax returns when filing federal returns.

in response utah s decision put recognition of these marriage same-sex couples on hold , aclu filed evans v. herbert on january 21 in federal court on behalf of several same-sex couples married during 17 days shelby s decision in effect. plaintiffs successful in district court but, after series of appeals state, district court s mandate ordering utah recognize these marriages stayed u.s. supreme court. after u.s. supreme court refused hear kitchen, utah officials asked tenth circuit dismiss appeal in case, ending attempt deny recognition december/january same-sex marriages. district court issued order , permanent injunction in evans v. herbert on november 24, 2014.

cite error: there <ref group=note> tags on page, references not show without {{reflist|group=note}} template (see page).