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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT