ILNews

Hearing on motion for TRO on marriage statute Thursday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The multiple challenges to Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage are picking up steam with the federal court scheduling arguments regarding a temporary restraining order and the state filing a motion to dismiss one of the lawsuits.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana will hear arguments this week regarding the motion for a temporary restraining order filed on behalf of one of the same-sex couples in Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al.  

Nicole Rai Quasney and Amy Melissa Sandler have asked the court to require Indiana to recognize their marriage performed in Massachusetts. According to court documents, Quasney is battling an aggressive ovarian cancer and wants the state to identify her as “married” on her death certificate as well as specify Sandler as her “surviving spouse.”

After a teleconference April 4 between Young and the attorneys on the motion, the judge scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. CDT Thursday at the federal building in Evansville.

Lambda Legal filed Baskin March 10. Multiple calls Monday to the national organization were not returned.

Also on April 4, the Indiana attorney general filed a motion to dismiss Love, et al. v. Pence, arguing the sole defendant named in the complaint, Gov. Mike Pence, cannot provide any relief.

The Love complaint was filed on behalf of four couples by a team of Kentucky lawyers who successfully challenged Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban. It was the first challenge filed this year to Indiana’s marriage statute.
 
The state presents two arguments in its motion. First, since the governor does not issue marriage licenses nor perform any function that recognizes marriages solemnized in other states, the District Court lacks jurisdiction under Article III. Second, because the governor does not enforce the state’s marriage statute, sovereign immunity and the 11th Amendment bar the complaint.

The five lawsuits challenging the marriage statute have been assigned to Young.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT