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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT