14-556 National Family Civil Rights Center

8/9/2019 14-556 National Family Civil Rights Center

1/24

____________

____________

____________

____________

_____________

_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________

____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

NO.

14-556,

14-562,

14-571,

14-574

IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

J AMESOBERGEFELL,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

RICHARDHODGES,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

V ALERIA T ANCO,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

BILLH ASLAM,

ET

AL.,

RESPONDENTS.

A PRILDEBOER,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

RICK SNYDER,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

GREGORY BOURKE,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

STEVEBESHEAR,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

O OO On nn n W WW Wr rr ri ii it tt ts ss s o oo of ff f C CC Ce ee er rr rt tt ti ii io oo or rr ra aa ar rr ri ii i t tt to oo o t tt th hh he ee e

U UU US SS S C CC Co oo ou uu ur rr rt tt t o oo of ff f A AA Ap pp pp pp pe ee ea aa al ll ls ss s f ff fo oo or rr r t tt th hh he ee e S SS Si ii ix xx xt tt th hh h C CC Ci ii ir rr rc cc cu uu ui ii it tt t

BBBBRRRRIIIIEEEEFFFF A AA AM MM MI II IC CC CU UU US SS S C CC CU UU UR RR RI II IA AA AE EE E OOOOFFFFTTTTHHHHEEEE NNNNA AA ATTTTIIIIOOOONNNNA AA ALLLLFFFFA AA AMMMMIIIILLLLY YY Y CCCCIIIIV VV VIIIILLLLRRRRIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTSSSSCCCCEEEENNNNTTTTEEEERRRR

IIIINNNNSSSSUUUUPPPPPPPPOOOORRRRTTTTOOOOFFFFPPPPEEEETTTTIIIITTTTIIIIOOOONNNNEEEERRRRSSSS

DOUGLASJ.

C ALLAHAN Counsel of Record


2/24

N AT’LF AMILY CIVILRIGHTSCTR.

1101Pennsylvania Avenue,NW6thFloorWashington,D.C.20004(800)[email protected]

March5,2015

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/24

i

TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee

oooof ff f

CCCCoooonnnntttteeeennnnttttssss

INTERESTOFTHE AMICUS CURIAE ...................1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................2

ARGUMENT...............................................................3

I. THEPETITIONER’SRIGHTTOM ARRY ISFOUNDINTHEFOURTEENTH A MENDMENT.......................4

A.

Parents

in

and

the

children

of

same-sexmarriagesareentitledtoequalprotection.....................................................5

B. Same-sexmarriagebansunfairlydiscriminateagainstchildrenbasedontheconstitutionally-protectedchoicesof theirparents............................................8

II.F AILURETORECOGNIZELEGALS AME-SEXM ARRIAGESFROMOTHERJURISDICTION

VIOLATESTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION ANDH ARMSF AMILIES.........................................11

A. ThisCaseDirectlyImplicatestheDomesticRelationsExceptiontoSubjectMatterJurisdiction......................13

CONCLUSION..........................................................18


4/24

ii

TTTTaaaabbbblllleeee

oooof ff f

A AA Auuuutttthhhhoooorrrriiiittttiiiieeeessss

CCCCaaaasssseeeessss

Ankenbrandt v. Richards ,504U.S.689(1992)...............................................16

Ashmore v. Prus , 510Fed. App’x47(2dCir.2013)..........................13

Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Ct. Assiniboine , 513F.3d943(9thCir.2008).................................14

Barber

v.

Barber , 62U.S.582(1858).................................................16

Boddie v. Connecticut , 401U.S.371(1971)...............................................13

Bowers v. Hardwick , 478U.S.186(1986).................................................8

Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l , 431U.S.678(1977)...............................................13

City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons , 522U.S.156,(1997)..............................................13

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur , 414U.S.632(1974).................................................5

Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405U.S.438(1972)...............................................13

Flood v. Braaten , 727F.2d303(3dCir.1984)............................13,14

Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health , 798N.E.2d941(Mass.2003)............................8,10

Griswold v. Connecticut ,

381

U.S.

479

(1965)

...............................................13


5/24

iii

CCCCaaaasssseeeessss

((((ccccoooonnnntttt....))))

In re Burrus,136U.S.586(1890)...............................................16

Johnson v. Rodrigues , 226F.3d1103(10thCir.2000).............................14

Lawrence v. Texas , 539U.S.558(2003).................................7,8,10,13

Loving v. Virginia , 388U.S.1(1966)...................................................12

Mandel

v.

Town

of

Orleans ,

326F.3d267(1stCir.2003).................................13

Maynard v. Hill , 125U.S.190(1888)...............................................11

McLaughlin v. Pernsley , 876F.2d308(3dCir.1989)..................................14

Meyer v. Nebraska , 262U.S.390(1923).................................................4

Moore v. City of East Cleveland ,

431

U.S.

494

(1977)

.................................................5

Palmore v. Sidoti ,466U.S.429(1984).....................12

Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268U.S.510(1925)...........................................4,13

Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505U.S.833(1992).................................................8

Pyler v Doe , 457U.S.202(1982).........................................6,7,8

Roe v. Wade ,

410

U.S.

113

(1973)

...............................................13

Ruffalo v. Civiletti , 702F.2d710(8thCir.1983).................................14


6/24


7/24

____________

____________

____________

____________

_____________

_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________

1

In

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

J AMESOBERGEFELL,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

RICHARDHODGES,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

V ALERIA T ANCO,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

BILLH ASLAM,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

A PRILDEBOER,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

RICK SNYDER,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

GREGORY BOURKE,ET AL.,PETITIONERS,

v.

STEVEBESHEAR,ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

O OO On nn n

W WW Wr rr ri ii it tt ts ss s

o oo of ff f

C CC Ce ee er rr rt tt ti ii io oo or rr ra aa ar rr ri ii i

t tt to oo o

t tt th hh he ee e

U UU US SS S C CC Co oo ou uu ur rr rt tt t o oo of ff f A AA Ap pp pp pp pe ee ea aa al ll ls ss s f ff fo oo or rr r t tt th hh he ee e S SS Si ii ix xx xt tt th hh h C CC Ci ii ir rr rc cc cu uu ui ii it tt t

IIIINNNNTTTTEEEERRRREEEESSSSTTTTOOOOFFFFTTTTHHHHEEEE A AA AM MM MI II IC CC CU UU US SS S C CC CU UU UR RR RI II IA AA AE EE E 1111

The National Family Civil Rights Center(“NFCRC”) is the only national non-profit organ-

Nocounselforapartyauthoredthisbrief inwholeorpart,

nor

did

any

person

or

entity,

other

than

amicus

or

their

counsel,makeamonetarycontributiontothepreparationorsubmission

of thisbrief. Allcounselof recordhaveconsentedtothisfilingthroughtheblanketandNFCRCconsentsfiledwiththecourt.

1111


8/24

2

ization

solely

committed

to

protecting

and

enhancingthecivilrightsof childrenandparentsinalltypesof

familieswiththemissiontoenhanceandprotecttherightsof families toequalprotectionunder the law,fundamentally fair proceedings in the courts, andaccessibility to legalandgovernmentprocesses thatimpactthelivesof parentsandchildrenineverytypeof family.

The NFCRC participates directly in and asamicus curiae in courts across the country in

proceedings

which

present

significant

and

pressing

issuesconcerningthecivilrightsof families.2222

SSSSUUUUMMMMMMMMA AA ARRRRY YY Y OOOOFFFF A AA ARRRRGGGGUUUUMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT

1. Petitioners’righttomarry is found inthedueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. TheSixthCircuit, and respondents, arewrong to definemarriage as only between aman and awomen fortwo inextricably-intertwined reasons. First, theCourt’s marriage and sexual rights cases do not

support

an

exclusion

of

this

right

to

marry

based

on

theconstitutionally-protectedsexualorientationof amanorwoman. Second,theSixthCircuit’sdecision,results inunfairdiscriminationagainst the childrenbornoradopted into theunionof same-sexparents,or being raised by same-sex parents, based only onthe constitutionally protected choices and sexualorientationof theirparents,andthusinterfereswith

IncludinginStankevich v Milliron ,MichiganSupreme

Court

No.

148097,

a

same-sex

marriage

and

custody

disputebetweentwowomenmarriedinCanadathathasbeenheldin

abeyanceby April25,2014orderpendingresolutionof DeBoer v. Snyder .

2222


9/24

3

the

oldest

of

liberty

interests

recognized

by

theCourt.

2. Failure torecognize same-sexmarriages legalinother jurisdictions(1)violatestheConstitution,(2)harms families, and (3) creates a very dangerousexpansion of the domestic relations exception tofederalquestionsubjectmatter jurisdiction.

A AA ARRRRGGGGUUUUMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT

This case presents an issue of great juris-

prudential

significance

to

the

bedrock

of

American

society,thefamily,andtheoldestof libertyinterests:

TheFourteenth Amendment provides thatnoStateshall“depriveanypersonof life, liberty,or property,without due process of law.”Wehave long recognized that the Amendment'sDueProcessClause, like itsFifth Amendmentcounterpart, “guarantees more than fairprocess.” TheClausealso includesasubstan-tive component that “provides heightened

protection

against

government

interference

with certain fundamental rights and libertyinterests.” Thelibertyinterest…of parentsinthe care, custody, and control of theirchildren—is perhaps the oldest of thefundamental liberty interests recognized bythisCourt.”

Troxel v Granville ,530US57,65(2000)

The decision below, conflicting with thedecisions of every other sister Circuit, is wholly

devoid

of

any

recognition

that

this

national

debateaboutsame-sexmarriagesis,atitscore,adebate that affects the legal interests of thou-


10/24

4

sands

of

American

parents

and

children,

andundeniablyanddirectlydeniesthese families the

fundamental liberties that theCourthas alwaysprotected.

IIII.... TTTTHHHHEEEEPPPPEEEETTTTIIIITTTTIIIIOOOONNNNEEEERRRR’’’’SSSSRRRRIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTTOOOOMMMM A AA ARRRRRRRRY YY Y IIIISSSSFFFFOOOOUUUUNNNNDDDDIIIINNNNTTTTHHHHEEEEFFFFOOOOUUUURRRRTTTTEEEEEEEENNNNTTTTHHHH A AA A MMMMEEEENNNNDDDDMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT

Today, theconceptof a familycontinuestoberedefined and if anything, the traditional familyconsisting of a married father and mother with

children

living

in

one

home

has

become

less

the

norm. What the SixthCircuit has done, is singledout a class of those families, based only on theconstitutionally-protected sexual preferences of theadultsinthosefamilies,andimposeduponthemtheexact same unacceptable conditions noted by theCourtin2013whenstrikingdownthefederalbanonsamesexmarriages:

DOMA undermines both the public andprivate significance of state-sanctioned

same-sex

marriages;

for

it

tells

those

couples, and all the world, that theirotherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sexcouples inanunstablepositionof being inasecond-tier marriage. The differentiationdemeansthecouple,whosemoralandsexualchoices the Constitution protects, seeLawrence , 539 U. S. 558, and whoserelationship theStatehassought todignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of

children

now

being

raised

by

same-sex

couples. The law in question makes it even

more difficult for the children to understand


11/24

5

the

integrity

and

closeness

of

their

own family and its concord with other families in

their community and in their daily lives.

United States v. Windsor , 570 US___ (2013)(emphasis added )

This refusal todenymarriage toadultsbasedontheirconstitutionally-protectedsexualorientationobviouslyhasramificationsfarbeyond justmarriagelicensesandinstead,assomany federalcourtshaverecognized, touches upon every aspect of domestic

relations

laws:

marriage,

divorce,

child

custody,

andsomuchmore. Thus, this denial of the oldest and

most fundamental liberty interests implicating thefamilyisnot justhumiliation,butthedeprivationof rights that affect themost vulnerable, the childrenbeing raised in intact, same-sex unions, and thechildrenwhohavebeenbroughtintotheseunions.

A. PPPPaaaarrrreeeennnnttttssssiiiinnnnaaaannnnddddtttthhhheeeecccchhhhiiiillllddddrrrreeeennnnoooof ff f ssssaaaammmmeeee----sssseeeexxxxmmmmaaaarrrrrrrriiiiaaaaggggeeeessssaaaarrrreeeeeeeennnnttttiiiittttlllleeeeddddttttooooeeeeqqqquuuuaaaallllpppprrrrooootttteeeeccccttttiiiioooonnnn

TheCourthas longprotected family relation-

ships

and

employed

a

liberal

interpretation

of

theword “family.” The Court first placed the parent-

child relationship under the protection of theFourteenth Amendment, recognizing that the right“tomarry,establishahomeandbringupchildren”isprotected by the Due Process Clause. Meyer v. Nebraska ,262U.S.390,399(1923);see also Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268U.S. 510, 533-34 (1925). InWisconsin v. Yoder , 406U.S. 205 (1972) the Courtprotected families from governmental intrusion intothe parental authority inherent in raising a child

and

later

recognized

in

Santosky

v.

Kramer,

455

U.S.

745,758 (1982)thattherightsof naturalparentstothecarecustodyandmanagementof theirchild isa


12/24

6

fundamental

right

protected

by

the

Fourteenth Amendment.Notably, theCourtdidnot employ the

useof “birthparents” inSantosky whichwouldinferonly a biological connection to a child, but insteadused “natural parent”, which has always been the“first parent” of a child, irrespective of geneticconnection,asisoftenthecasewithchildrenadoptedintoorresultingfromsame-sexunions.

Furthermore,theCourthasrefusedtoadoptanarrow definition of “family” that limits con-

stitutional

protections

to

just

traditional

families,

recognizing the need to adopt a broad definition of family.Moore v. City of East Cleveland ,431U.S.494(1977). Justice Powell explained: “our decisionsestablish that theConstitutionprotects the sanctityof the familypreciselybecause the institutionof thefamily is deeply rooted in thisNation’shistory andtradition…Ours is bynomeans a tradition limitedto respect for thebondsuniting themembersof thenuclearfamily.”Id. at503-04.

TheCourt furtheracknowledgedthat“family”

is

not

limited

to

blood,

marriage

or

by

adoption

in

Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for

Equality and Reform , 431 U.S. 816, 843-44 (1977).Thus thearguments that same-sexmarriage cannotresult innaturalprocreation – asreasons tosustainsame-sexmarriagebans – areutterlymeritless.

Also, the Court “has long recognized thatfreedom of personal choices inmatters of marriageandfamilylifeisoneof thelibertiesprotectedbytheDueProcessClauseof theFourteenth Amendment.”

Cleveland

Bd.

of

Educ.

v.

LaFleur ,

414

U.S.

632,

639-40 (1974). The Court further acknowledged that“[t]hedemographicchangesof thepastcenturymake


13/24

7

it

difficult

to

speak

of

an

average

American

family”when strengthening the rights of parents to

determinewithwhomachildassociates inTroxel v. Granville ,530U.S.57(2000).

Thus, the decision below cannot be squaredwith the clear scrutiny required by Troxel and theliberal definition of family long-established by the jurisprudenceof theCourt.

Further,whereastheCourthasacknowledgedthe importance of a liberal definition of family and

rights

of

parents,

it

has

demonstrated

a

greaterdetermination to protect the rights of children; in

Pyler v Doe ,457U.S.202(1982)theCourtrefusedtopunish children for the mistakes of the parents.Whilewe certainlydonot characterizeasamistakethe choice of two same-sex adults to exercise choiceinmakingaunionbasedupontheirconstitutionally-protected right to their sexual orientation, thepractical impact of the SixthCircuit’s decision is topunish the children of these lawful relationshipsbetweentwolovingadults,onlybecausetheyarethe

children

of

same-sex

oriented

adults.

For

this

reason

alone, the parents and children in these families,have a fundamental right that is being denied; thisrighttocontinuetheirparent-childrelationshipwithparents who came together and formed an intactfamily intowhich theywere born or adopted or arebeingraised,thatisdeemedlegalinmanystatesbutnot within the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, as setforth in §B below, these children aredenied rightsandprotectionstheywouldotherwisebeaffordedbut

for

the

choices

of

their

parents.


14/24

8

B.

SSSSaaaammmmeeee----sssseeeexxxx

mmmmaaaarrrrrrrriiiiaaaaggggeeee

bbbbaaaannnnssss

uuuunnnnf ff faaaaiiiirrrrllllyyyy

ddddiiiissssccccrrrriiiimmmmiiiinnnnaaaatttteeeeaaaaggggaaaaiiiinnnnssssttttcccchhhhiiiillllddddrrrreeeennnnbbbbaaaasssseeeeddddoooonnnntttthhhheeeeccccoooonnnnssssttttiiiittttuuuuttttiiiioooonnnnaaaallllllllyyyy----

pppprrrrooootttteeeecccctttteeeeddddcccchhhhooooiiiicccceeeessssoooof ff f tttthhhheeeeiiiirrrrppppaaaarrrreeeennnnttttssss

InPyler ,thisCourtobserved:

“Persuasiveargumentssupporttheviewthata State may withhold its beneficence fromthosewhoseverypresencewithintheUnitedStates is the product of their own unlawfulconduct.Theseargumentsdonotapplywiththe same force to classifications imposing

disabilities

on

the

minor

children

of

suchillegal entrants…. Their ‘parents have the

ability to conform their conduct to societalnorms,’andpresumablytheabilitytoremovethemselves from theState’s jurisdiction;butthechildrenwhoareplaintiffsinthesecases‘canaffectneithertheirparents’conductnortheirownstatus.”Id. at220.

But in the Sixth Circuit, the status of a child’sparents as a same-sex couple – denied the right to

marry

–

is

the

only

reason

why

these

children

are

excludedfromtheprotectionsstatelaws(see e.g. theChildCustody Actof Michiganandanassessmentof bestinterestspursuanttoMCL722.23). ThiscannotbesquaredwiththisCourt’sholdinginPyler.

Significantly, the same-sex status of thou-sands of children’s parents, which are being usedagainst them as children of these parents – forexample by removing from those children the samecustodial best-interests protections that wouldotherwiseapply – isnotanillegalalienstatuswhich

the

Court

considered

in

Pyler

but

instead

is

a

constitutionally protected right that has beenrepeatedly affirmed by the Court. In Lawrence v.


15/24

9

Texas ,

539

U.S.

558

(2003),

this

Court

recognized

theconstitutional right of all individuals, to engage in

homosexual sexual relations within the privacy of theirownhomes.

In doing so, the Court expressly overruledBowers v. Hardwick ,478U.S.186(1986)andinsteadfollowedPlanned Parenthood v. Casey ,505U.S.833(1992) and its broad construction of the rights andtraditions at stake inherent in the right to sexualliberty.

Indeed,

in

applying

Pyler ,

the

MassachusettsSupreme Court held that “[i]t cannot be rational

under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, topenalizechildrenbydeprivingthemof Statebenefitsbecause the State disapproves of their parents'sexual orientation.” Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health ,798N.E.2d941,964(Mass.2003).

Importantly, the states in the Sixth Circuitcannot discriminate against a person based upontheir homosexual orientation, in all respects except

marriage .

Clearly,

Lawrence

prevents

the

states’

Legislatures and voters of these states from inter-fering with the sexual relations of all individualsbaseduponaheterosexualorhomosexualorientationwithintheprivacyof theirownhomes.

But in the context of marriage, the SixthCircuitnowpermitssuchdiscrimination,because inelections past, the “will of the people” indicated adesiretocodifysuchdiscrimination.

Let there be no doubt too; the “will of the

people”

reflected

in

the

same-sex

bans

at

issue

below

contains the same animus this Court directlyaddressedinWindsor :


16/24

10

The

history

of

DOMA’s

enactment

and

its

owntext demonstrate that interference with the

equaldignityof same-sexmarriages,adignityconferredbytheStatesintheexerciseof theirsovereignpower,wasmore thanan incidentaleffectof thefederalstatute.Itwasitsessence.The House Report announced its conclusionthat ‘it is both appropriate and necessary forCongress to do what it can to defend theinstitution of traditional heterosexual mar-riage. . . .H.R.3396 isappropriatelyentitledthe

‘Defense

of

Marriage

Act.’

The

effort

to

redefine ‘marriage’ to extend to homosexualcouples isa truly radicalproposal thatwouldfundamentally alter the institution of marriage.’H.R.Rep.No.104–664,pp. 12–13(1996). The House concluded that DOMA expresses ‘both moral disapproval of homo-sexuality,andamoral conviction thathetero-sexuality better comports with traditional(especially Judeo-Christian) morality.’ Id., at

16

(footnote

deleted).

The

stated

purpose

of

thelawwas topromotean “interest inprotecting

the traditional moral teachings reflected inheterosexual-onlymarriage laws.” Ibid. Werethere any doubt of this far-reaching purpose,thetitleof the Actconfirms it:TheDefenseof Marriage.

Therecanbenodoubtthatthestatesame-sexmarriage bans at issue belowwere enacted for thesame reason, to interferewith the dignity of same-sexmarriagesbetweenhomosexualcouples.

Moreover, many same-sex citizens in thesestates would be considered legallymarried, if they


17/24

11

were

not

a

same-sex

couple ,

because

they

possessvalidmarriage licenses from other states. As such,

they are being discriminated against precisely andonly because of their constitutionally-protectedsexual orientation,which is everybit offensive as if their marriage certificate was subject to strictscrutiny and validity upon some other constitu-tionally-protected factor such as their religion, ageandabilitytoconceiveorbearchildren,ortheirrace.

Furthermore, it is readily obvious that the

discrimination

against

the

parties

in

this

case,

extends to the children in those families who arebeingpunishedbythechoicesandsexualorientationtheirparentsoverwhichtheynocontrol.

IIIIIIII.... FFFF A AA AIIIILLLLUUUURRRREEEETTTTOOOORRRREEEECCCCOOOOGGGGNNNNIIIIZZZZEEEELLLLEEEEGGGGA AA ALLLLSSSS A AA AMMMMEEEE----SSSSEEEEXXXX MMMM A AA ARRRRRRRRIIIIA AA AGGGGEEEESSSSFFFFRRRROOOOMMMMOOOOTTTTHHHHEEEERRRRJJJJUUUURRRRIIIISSSSDDDDIIIICCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNN V VV VIIIIOOOOLLLLA AA ATTTTEEEESSSSTTTTHHHHEEEEUUUUNNNNIIIITTTTEEEEDDDDSSSSTTTTA AA ATTTTEEEESSSSCCCCOOOONNNNSSSSTTTTIIIITTTTUUUUTTTTIIIIOOOONNNN A AA ANNNNDDDDHHHH A AA ARRRRMMMMSSSSFFFF A AA AMMMMIIIILLLLIIIIEEEESSSS

Since this Court’s decision in Lawrence and

the

Massachusetts

Supreme

Court

decision

in

Goodridge , every other state has either legalizedsame-sex marriage or passed a constitutionalamendment (or other legislation) to ban same-sexunions. Today, the listof states thathave legalizedsame-sex marriage through federal court decisionsexpands, but eight states have legalized same-sexmarriage through the enactment of legislation(Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, NewHampshire,New York,RhodeIsland,and Vermont),and three throughapopularvote (Maine,Maryland

and

Washington).

Same-sex

marriage

is

also

legal

in

Washington,D.C.,aswell asacross theUSbordersto the north and south in Canada and many


18/24

12

jurisdictions

in

Mexico.

Importantly,

since

Windsor, not a single state constitutional or legislative ban

hasbeenenactedbyvoters.

Accordingly, the states in the Sixth Circuitmay now refuse to recognize the marriages of itscitizens, when performed in other states, and thatare legal in other states, only on the grounds thatthese otherwise legal marriages are betweenhomosexual adults. This raises competing interestsof states’ rights and individual rights, which the

Court

did

not

address

in

Windsor .

But this right to regulate the domestic relationsof parties in the context of marriage, conflictswiththe fundamental rights vested in children andparents under the authority of the United StatesConstitution that “may not be submitted to vote;theydependon theoutcomeof noelections.”W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 638(1943). Further, marriage is “the most importantrelation in life”andas “the foundationof the familyand society, without which there would be neither

civilization

nor

progress.”

Maynard

v.

Hill ,

125

U.S.

190, 205, 211 (1888). Finally, a state cannot“unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry”Zablocki v. Redhail ,434U.S.374,388(1978).

Therefore, the state bans at issue belowviolate the equal protection liberties of same-sexspouses legally married in other jurisdictions thatareequallyprotectedbytheFourteenth AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.


19/24

13

A.

TTTThhhhiiiissss

CCCCaaaasssseeee

DDDDiiiirrrreeeeccccttttllllyyyy

IIIImmmmpppplllliiiiccccaaaatttteeeessss

tttthhhheeee

DDDDoooommmmeeeessssttttiiiiccccRRRReeeellllaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssssEEEExxxxcccceeeeppppttttiiiioooonnnnttttooooSSSSuuuubbbbj jj jeeeeccccttttMMMMaaaatttttttteeeerrrr

JJJJuuuurrrriiiissssddddiiiiccccttttiiiioooonnnn

The justiciability of the family as a federalquestion – theunspokenbutunderlyingissuehere – criesout forresolutionby theCourt. Indeed,statesseeking to enforce same-sexmarriagebans thatareprocedurally behind the cases at bar (e.g. South Carolina )haveraisedthisinstayapplicationstotheCourt. Forthesereasons,thiscasepresentsanideal

vehicle

to

resolve

a

deep

and

entrenched

circuit

split.

Numerous scholars note that a series of federal “constitutional questions relating to thefamily ─ about who canmarry, who can have sex,whocanprocreateorchosenottoprocreate,andtherightsof parentsandchildren”havebeendecided inthe Court and that as a consequence, the federal judiciary is charged with “frequently acting as acheck on stateprerogatives.”3333 These federal constit-utionalissueshaveledtoconflictovertheroleof thefederalsystemindomesticrelations. Indeed,constit-

utional

review

of

Congress’

“jurisdiction-stripping

legislation [1 U.S.C. 7] to prevent federal courtreview of fundamental family rights” is now underreview and this Court has struck down otherCongressional attempts to regulate aspects of domestic relations: see United States v. Morrison ,529 U.S. 598, 627 (2000); Thompson v. Thompson ,484U.S.174,186n.4(1988). Id. Harbach

3333 Harbach,

Meridith

Johnson,

“Is the Family a Federal Question ,”WashingtonandLeeLawReview, Volume66,Issue1, Article4,pg138[66Wash.&LeeL.Rev.131(2009)]


20/24

14

Furthermore,

the

Federal

bench

has

a

long-standing tradition of intervening in state domesticrelations issues when federal question casesimplicatethefamily,frequentlyservingasthischeckuponstateprerogativeswhichimpedeonthecentralliberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.Zablocki v. Redhail , 434 U.S. 374, 376 (1978);Palmore v. Sidoti ,466U.S.429,430(1984);Loving v. Virginia ,388U.S.1,3-4 (1966);Pierce v. Society of Sisters ,268U.S.510,510(1925);Lawrence v. Texas ,539 U.S. 558, 578-79 (2003); Carey v. Population Servs.

Int'l ,

431

U.S.

678,

681-82

(1977);

Roe

v.

Wade , 410U.S. 113, 116, 120 (1973); Eisenstadt v. Baird , 405 U.S. 438, 440 (1972); Boddie v. Connecticut ,401U.S.371,372 (1971);andGriswold v. Connecticut ,381U.S.479,485-86(1965).

In fact, the "claims of a kind traditionallyadjudicated in federal courts... [were] not exceptedfrom federal court jurisdiction simply because theyar[o]se inadomestic relations context."City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons ,522U.S.156,190n.6(1997)

(Ginsburg,

J.,

dissenting).

As

the

body

of

federal

constitutionaldecisionsaffectingfamilieshasgrown,the federal courts increasingly have faced federalquestionclaimsrelatingtodomesticrelations – asinthecasesatbar.See e.g. Flood v. Braaten ,727F.2d303, 307 n.17 (3d Cir. 1984) (observing that, givenSupreme Court's modem recognition of family lawrights of constitutional dimension, "it would bedifficult to maintain that the domestic relationsexceptionextendstoallsourcesof jurisdiction").

Yet

today,

great

uncertainty

and

a

split

amongthe circuits has emerged, raising uncertainty about

whether federal court have jurisdiction to address


21/24

15

the

types

of

federal

questions

implicating

thedomesticrelationsof parties,asinthesecasesatbar:

Ashmore v. New York , aff’d sub nom. Ashmore v. Prus ,510Fed. App’x47 (2dCir.2013), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2038 (2013) (“We expressly decline toaddresswhether thedomestic relationsexception tofederal subjectmatter jurisdictionapplies to federalquestionactions.”); Mandel v. Town of Orleans , 326F.3d 267, 271 (1st Cir. 2003) ("[T]he courts aredivided as to whether the doctrine is limited todiversity claims and this court has never decidedthat

issue.

The

debate

is

esoteric

but,

as

federal

law

increasingly affects domestic relations, one of potential importance."); Johnson v. Rodrigues , 226F.3d1103,1111n.4 (10thCir.2000) ("Somedistrictcourts in the Second Circuit have applied thedomestic relations exception in federal questioncases,butotherCircuitshaveheldthattheexceptionis limited to diversity suits."); McLaughlin v. Pernsley , 876 F.2d 308, 312 (3d Cir. 1989)(recognizing differences in some circuits); Ruffalo v.

Civiletti ,

702

F.2d

710,

717-18

(8th

Cir.

1983)

("It

isunclear whether the domestic-relations exception

applies to cases brought under the federal-questionstatute."); Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Ct. Assiniboine ,513F.3d943,947 (9thCir.2008) (“Wetherefore join the Fourth and Fifth Circuits inholdingthatthedomesticrelationsexceptionappliesonly to the diversity jurisdiction statute”); United States v. Johnson ,114F.3d476,481 (4thCir.1997)(“The 'jurisdictional exception,' in the first place, isappliedonlyasa judicially implied limitationonthe

diversity

jurisdiction;

it

has

no

generally

recognized

application as a limitation on federal question jurisdiction.”); Flood v. Braaten , 727 F.2d 303, 305,


22/24

16

308

(3d

Cir.

1984)

("[W]e

cannot

agree

with

thedistrict judge that the PKPA can never support

federal question jurisdiction in a lawsuit connectedwith a child custody dispute. Accordingly, we willremand for further proceedings." ("[A]s a jurisdictional bar, the domestic relations exceptiondoes not apply to cases arising under theConstitutionorlawsof theUnitedStates.").

This importantdebate ragesonandshowsnosign of abating, evidenced by the March 3, 2015

order

of

the

Alabama

Supreme

Court

that

the

probate judges of its statewerenot tomarry same-sex Alabama citizens, holding, inter alia , that itsstate Constitution was the relevant authority, notthe Federal courts, in direct contravention of theU.S.Constitutionandrelevantordersof theFederal judiciary. See Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, et. al. No.1140460.

As Alabama once again demonstrates, theFederal courts aremore independent and insulatedfrom local bias or majoritarian pressure, enabling

them

to

enforce

the

U.S.

Constitution

without

fear

of

reprisal. Moreover,thelongstandingtraditionof theFederalCourtsasenforcersof theConstitution,andthe lifetime appointment to the bench, makes theFederal bench more receptive to the Court’sprecedents and distant from the pressures on statecourts which may leave state court Judges cynicalandskepticalof constitutionalrightsinpractice. Forpreciselythisreason,legalscholarshavenotedthat

Expanding the exception to federal questions

undermines

the

value

in

preserving

a

federal

forum for family law cases raising federalquestions. Using the domestic relations


23/24

17

exception

to

bar

consideration

of

federalquestions in federal court may increase the

possibility that state courts will decline toextend important federal family rights or,worse yet, undermine them knowing theirdecisions will never be reviewed by theSupremeCourt

…

[T]his expansion causes expressive harm andhas cultural implications. An expanded

exception

manifests

an

attitude

that

federalfamily law questions and litigants are less

important or worthy than other federalquestions.Thisexpressivemessage lowersthestatus of these issues, reinforcing the inferiorstatusof familylawissuesvis-á-visthefederalcourts, and assuring the continuedmarginalizationof familylaw.

…

[federal questions are the] core of modern

federal

court

jurisdiction

[and]

the

mostimportant component of the federal courts’

workload.

Harbach, at 138.

Finally, we note that the central premise of the domestic relations exception—that "[t]he wholesubject of domestic relations of husband and wife,parent and child, belongs to the laws of the statesandnottotheUnitedStates”originallyappearedasadicta. In re Burrus , 136U.S. 586,593-94 (1890).

Although

this

was

first

articulated

in

1959,

theSupremeCourtdidnotrelyonthis justificationfora

holdingasopposedtodictauntil1930. Ankenbrandt


24/24

18

v.

Richards ,

504

U.S.

689,

694

(1992)

((noting

thatlanguage inBarber, firstannouncingexception,was

"technicallydicta") (citingBarber v. Barber ,62U.S.582, 584 (1858)). For too long, lower courts havebeen left to their own to interpret what the Courtintendedin Akenbrandt.

For these reasons, direct rejection of thedomestic relations exception to subject matter jurisdiction in federal question actions is bothnecessaryandappropriateinthesecasesatbar.

CCCCOOOONNNNCCCCLLLLUUUUSSSSIIIIOOOONNNN

Allowing the Sixth Circuit decision to standwill deny thousands of American couples, parentsand childrenoneof theoldest fundamental libertiesrecognized by the Court. For these reasons, theNational Family Civil Rights Center respectfullyasksthattheCourtreverse.

Respectfully

submitted,

DOUGLASJ.C ALLAHANCounsel of Record

N AT’LF AMILY CIVILRIGHTSCTR.1101Pennsylvania Avenue,NW6thFloorWashington,D.C.20004(800)[email protected]

Dated:

M ARCH5,

2015
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

14-556 National Family Civil Rights Center

Documents

Transcript of 14-556 National Family Civil Rights Center