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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT