Challenges to Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban piling up in federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Update: This story has been edited to add the fourth lawsuit filed Friday.


And then there were four.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Friday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, becoming the third such complaint lodged against Indiana in a week. Another suit challening the ban was also filed in federal court Friday.

The wave of lawsuits began March 7 when four couples in southern Indiana, represented by the legal team in Louisville who successfully challenged Kentucky’s marriage statute, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. This was followed by the national organization Lambda Legal filing a complaint March 10 in the Southern District on behalf of three Indiana couples.

The ACLU filed its suit on behalf of 14 couples, including two children who have faced discrimination because Indiana does not permit or recognize same-sex marriage. Midori Fujii, whose wife of 11 years died after a two-year battle with ovarian cancer, is the lead plaintiff. Because their California marriage was not recognized in Indiana, Fujii was not allowed by the funeral home to make decisions for her wife’s funeral and had to pay more than $300,000 in state inheritance taxes on property her wife left.

“Marriage has long played a fundamental role in our society,” said ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Kenneth J. Falk. “By failing to allow or recognize marriages for same-sex couples in Indiana, the state is perpetuating a discriminatory practice that cannot be squared with the Constitution.”

The ACLU suit argues Indiana Code 31-11-1-1 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The suit seeks to stop the state from enforcing this law and to allow same-sex couples to wed in Indiana as well as recognize same-sex marriages that have been performed in other states.

Also Friday, Richard A. Mann P.C. in Indianapolis filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Michelle and Shannon Bowling and Linda Bruner challening the state's Defense of Marriage Act. The Bowlings, who were married in Iowa, reside and work in Indianapolis, have been denied state recognition of their lawful marriage. Linda Bruner, who was lawfully married in Iowa is also seeking recognition of her marriage here as she is seeking to obtain a divorce from her wife and has had a divorce pending since January 2013.

The ACLU challenge, Midori Fujii, et al. v. Indiana Governor, et al., 1:14-CV-00404; Michelle Bowling, Shannon Bowling and Linda Bruner v. Michael Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-0405; and the case filed a week ago by the Louisville team, Love v. Pence, 4:14-CV-00015, name Gov. Mike Pence as the defendant.

However, the Lambda suit, Baskin v. Bogan, 1:14-CV-0355, names the clerks of Boone, Porter and Lake counties along with Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller as defendants.

In response to the first two lawsuits, Zoeller has vowed to defend Indiana’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

“When plaintiffs who disagree with an Indiana statute file a challenge in court, I have a duty as Indiana’s Attorney General to defend our state and the statute the Legislature passed to the best of my skill and ability – and will here, both now and on any appeal,” Zoeller said.

Indiana has not filed an answer to any of the suits filed, but Zoeller has submitted amicus briefs in support of marriage laws in other District courts. Indiana is the lead author in a multistate amicus brief filed in the 10th Circuit in the combined case of Kitchen v. Herbert (from Utah) and Bishop v. Smith (from Oklahoma).

The 10th Circuit panel is scheduled to hear arguments in the Utah appeal April 10. This will be the first appeal to a federal court’s ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and could become the first federal court of appeals decision on the topic since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on United States v. Windsor.

Besides Kentucky, Utah, and Oklahoma, same-sex marriage prohibitions have been knocked down by the federal courts in Virginia, Ohio and Texas. Also, seven couples in Arizona, represented by Lambda Legal, filed suit March 13 in federal court, challenging that state’s marriage law.

The trio of lawsuits come just weeks after proponents of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the marriage amendment to the state Constitution, HJR 3, failed to gain enough support among Indiana lawmakers to appear on the 2014 November ballot. Legislators altered the wording of HJR 3 to remove the ban on civil unions which essentially put the amendment process back to the beginning.

“Even though we have temporarily avoided a state constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples, we cannot stand by idly while the Constitution’s guarantees of fairness and equality are denied to so many loving couples,” said Jane Henegar, ACLU of Indiana executive director.



  • Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité
  • Now hear this
    Attention subjects: "democracy" no longer a factor in the subject matter henceforth designated "gay rights." So ordered.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.