ILNews

7th Circuit to hear Indiana same-sex marriage challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shortly after a federal judge ordered Indiana to recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General continued its defense of “traditional marriage” by filing a notice of appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. By doing so, it added to the list of appellate courts hearing challenges to state marriage laws.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller is appealing a preliminary injunction issued by Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana that prohibits the state from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage against Munster couple Nikole Quasney and Amy Sandler.

In addition, Zoeller has filed a motion to stay with the District Court to halt enforcement of the preliminary injunction until the 7th Circuit renders an opinion on the matter.

castillo-paul.jpg Castillo

The attorney general’s office expressed “sincere sympathy” for the plaintiffs but maintained the state’s marriage law does not allow for hardship exceptions.

“When plaintiffs’ lawyers sue the state and challenge its laws, the state is entitled to a defense in court,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. “The Indiana Legislature, not the attorney general’s office, determines the marriage law in Indiana. As the state’s lawyer, the attorney general’s office has a legal duty to defend the laws of the state from lawsuits in the trial court and in any appeal, and the appellate courts ultimately will decide the case.”

Quasney and Sandler are among the plaintiffs in Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-CV-00355, the lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal which asserts Indiana’s ban on allowing same-sex couples in the state to marry and its ban on recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed in other states are unconstitutional.

Lambda Legal filed an emergency request on their behalf because Quasney is terminally ill with Stage IV ovarian cancer. Young initially issued a temporary restraining order then followed with the preliminary injunction, which will ensure that Sandler will be listed as the surviving spouse on Quasney’s death certificate if she dies in Indiana.

Young’s decision to issue the preliminary injunction did not surprise many. Just as he noted when he issued the temporary restraining order, Young said the plaintiffs have shown a “reasonable likelihood of success” based on the merits of their case.

Paul Castillo, the attorney for Lambda Legal who argued on behalf of Quasney and Sandler, called Young’s ruling a victory but pointed out the judge has not ruled on the “ultimate question” of whether Indiana’s marriage statute violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

States’ rights

Indiana does not appear to be slowing in its defense of the state’s marriage statute. Along with its appeal and the motion to stay the Quasney and Sandler decision, the state appeared before Young on May 2 to argue for summary judgment in Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al.

sanders-steve.jpg Sanders

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Steve Sanders said the Indiana attorney general’s office is taking this aggressive posture because it is “more concerned, at this point, with scoring points with social conservatives than about the dignity of a dying person.”

The AG’s office said the preliminary injunction would have been appealed by whichever party lost the decision. The state appealed to the 7th Circuit to keep its legal options open and to allow the process to continue in court so the legal questions can be resolved conclusively.

Along with its continued push in the Baskin case, Zoeller has filed a motion for summary judgment in the same-sex marriage challenge brought by the ACLU of Indiana, Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-00404.

Indiana argued, in part, that the Supreme Court of the United States decision in United States v. Windsor – which triggered the avalanche of same-sex marriage lawsuits across the country – actually preserved the states’ ability to define marriage as they see fit. The decision in Windsor held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Fifth Amendment because it deviated from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage.

“First there is no doubt that the Constitution gives its blessing to New York to recognize out-of-jurisdiction same-sex marriages,” Zoeller wrote in the brief supporting the motion for summary judgment. “… It is a considerable leap from this conclusion, however, to read Windsor, which struck down Section 3 of DOMA for discrimination against ‘basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect,’ to establish a singular vision of a fundamental right to marriage that must be respected by all States.”

The ACLU of Indiana dismissed that argument, maintaining SCOTUS prefaced the Windsor decision with a reference from Loving v. Virginia which held state laws regulating marriage cannot violate the Constitution.

“But the mere fact that the Court resolved the issue before it without unnecessarily invalidating numerous state statutes not before it does not mean that its rationale has no role to play in subsequent challenges to those statutes,” the ACLU asserted in its response.

Likewise, Castillo does not believe the states’ rights argument is convincing. He pointed out that Zoeller has maintained this line of reasoning in his amicus briefs and other amicus briefs filed across the country have made similar arguments, but they have all been rejected by every single court that has ruled on marriage laws.

Circuit courts

With Indiana’s filing, the 7th Circuit joins the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th circuits in having appeals of same-sex marriage cases on its docket. The 4th and 10th circuits have heard oral arguments and recently, the 9th Circuit Court issued a stay preventing Idaho from performing gay marriages.

Sanders said a ruling from the 7th Circuit that upholds Young’s preliminary injunction is not certain, but the odds are in Lambda Legal’s favor. Namely because Young is a respected District judge, his decision can have a little more sway with the Circuit panel. Also, Young’s finding for Quasney and Sandler is not unique since federal judges in Ohio and Illinois have issued similar rulings regarding same-sex couples facing grave illnesses.

The 7th Circuit might have a hard time going counter to the wave created by District courts overturning marriage bans across the country, Sanders said.

Meanwhile, Young will continue to handle Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al. and the other four lawsuits challenging Indiana’s marriage statute. Castillo expects the judge will rule quickly on the state’s motion for a stay and that decision, too, will most likely be appealed to the 7th Circuit.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT