14-50196 #14288
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
1/54
No. 14-50196
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit_____________
Cleopatra DeLeon; Nicole Dimetman; Victor Holmes; Mark
Phariss,Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Rick Perry, In His Official Capacity as Goernor of the!tate of "e#as; Gre$ %&&ott, In His Official Capacity as
"e#as %ttorney General; Dai' Lakey, In His OfficialCapacity %s Commissioner Of "he Department Of !tate
Health !erices,
Defendants-Appellants._____________
On Appeal from the United States istri!t "o#rtfor the $estern istri!t of %e&as, San Antonio ivision
"ase No. 5'1(-!v-9)*_____________
APPELLANTS BRIEF_____________
Gre$ %&&ottAttorne+ eneral of %e&as
Daniel "( Ho'$e
irst Assistant Attorne+ eneral
Office of the %ttorney General
.O. /o& 1*54) " 0592A#stin, %e&as 3)311-*54)51*2 9(6-1300
)onathan *( MitchellSoli!itor eneral
+yle D( Hi$hfl
-eth +lsmannMichael P( Mrphy
Assistant Soli!itors eneral
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
2/54
i
Certificate of Interested Persons
"o#nsel of re!ord !ertifies that the folloin persons and entities as des!riedin the fo#rth senten!e of ifth "ir!#it 7#le *).*.1 have an interest in the o#t!omeof this !ase. %hese representations are made in order that the 8#des of this "o#rt
ma+ eval#ate possile dis#alifi!ation or re!#sal.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Counsel
"leopatra e:eon Ni!ole imetman ;i!tor r. :aneatthe ?din eppinAndre orest Neman%kin Gmp !trass Haer .
*el' LLP
Defendants Defendants Counsel
7i!= err+ re Aott
avid :a=e+
onathan . it!hell@+le . onathan . it!hell)onathan *( MitchellCounsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
3/54
ii
Statement Regarding Oral Argument
%he State respe!tf#ll+ s#mits that these !onstit#tional !hallenes to %e&asBs
marriae las are s#ffi!ientl+ important to arrant oral ar#ment.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
4/54
iii
Table of Contents
"ertifi!ate of Cnterested ersons ............................................................................. i
Statement 7eardin Oral Ar#ment ..................................................................... ii
%ale of A#thorities ................................................................................................v
Statement of >#risdi!tion ........................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Css#e ............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the "ase ............................................................................................. 1
S#mmar+ of the Ar#ment ..................................................................................... *
Ar#ment................................................................................................................ 5
C. %e&asBs arriae :as o Not ;iolate %he ?#al rote!tion"la#se. ................................................................................................ 6
CC.
%e&asBs arriae :as o Not ;iolate %he #e-ro!ess"la#se. .............................................................................................. **
CCC. %he laintiffsB "laims Are ore!losed /+Baker v. Nelson. ................ *)
C;.
%he laintiffsB "laims ind No S#pport Cn %he %e&t Or#di!iale!ree. ............................................................................................. (4
;C. %his "o#rt Sho#ld 7#le ?ven Cf %he S#preme "o#rt rants"ertiorari CnKitchen v. Herbert. ......................................................... ()
"on!l#sion ............................................................................................................ (9
"ertifi!ate of Servi!e............................................................................................ 40
"ertifi!ate of ?le!troni! "omplian!e .................................................................... 41
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
5/54
iv
"ertifi!ate of "omplian!e .................................................................................... 4*
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
6/54
v
Table of Autorities
Cases
A.L.A. Schechter Poultr Corp. v. !nited States,
*95 U.S. 495 19(52 ........................................................................................... (3
A"ostini v. #elton,5*1 U.S. *0( 19932 ........................................................................................... *9
Baker v. Nelson,409 U.S. )10 193*2 ....................................................................................... 5, *)
Ben-Shalo$ v. %arsh,))1 .*d 454 3th "ir. 19)92 .............................................................................. 19
Bd. of &r. of !niv. of Ala. v. 'arrett,5(1 U.S. (56 *0012 ........................................................................................... (3
Bo(ers v. Hard(ick,43) U.S. 1)6 19)62 .......................................................................................... *4
Bro(n v. Bd. of )duc.,(43 U.S. 4)( 19542 ........................................................................................... *1
Col"rove v. Battin,41( U.S. 149 193(2 ............................................................................................ (1
Cook v. 'ates,5*) .(d 4* 1st "ir. *00)2 ................................................................................ 1)
Dandrid"e v. *illia$s,(93 U.S. 431 19302 ........................................................................................... 1*
Dred Scott v. Sanford,60 U.S. (9( 1)562 ............................................................................................ **
)$p+t Div., Dep+t of Hu$an es. of r. v. S$ith,494 U.S. )3* 19902 ......................................................................................... *0
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
7/54
vi
#CC v. Beach Co$$c+ns, /nc.,50) U.S. (03 199(2 ...............................................................................(, 3, 1(, 13
Harris v. %cae,
44) U.S. *93 19)02 .......................................................................................... 14Haden v. Paterson,
594 .(d 150 *d "ir. *0102 ................................................................................. 3
Heller v. Doe,509 U.S. (1* 199(2 ................................................................................ (, 6, 3, 1*
Hernande0 v. obles,)55 N.?.*d 1 N.E. *0062.................................................................................. (1
Hicks v. %iranda,4** U.S. ((* 19352 .......................................................................................... *)
Hollin"s(orth v. Perr,1(( S. "t. *65* *01(2 ................................................................................. (0, ()
1ohn v. Paullin,*(1 U.S. 5)( 191(2 ............................................................................................ (0
Kitchen v. Herbert,No. 1(-413), *014 $: *)6)044 10th "ir. >#ne *5, *0142 ............... *4, *5, *6, ()
Lochner v. Ne( 2ork,19) U.S. 45 19052 ................................................................................... 5, **, (3
Lofton v. Sec+ of Dept. of Children and #a$il Servs.,(5) .(d )04 11th "ir. *0042 ............................................................................ 1)
Lovin" v. 3ir"inia,()) U.S. 1 19632 .................................................................................... 11, *0, *1
%andel v. Bradle,4(* U.S. 13( 19332 per !#riam2 ...................................................................... *)
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
8/54
vii
%cCullen v. Coakle,1(4 S. "t. *51) *0142 ...................................................................................... *0
%ichael H. v. 'erald D.,
491 U.S. 110 19)92 .......................................................................................... *4%orehead v. Ne( 2ork e4 rel. &ipaldo,
*9) U.S. 5)3 19(62 ........................................................................................... (3
Nat+l )ndo($ent for the Arts v. #inle,5*4 U.S. 569 199)2 ........................................................................................... 14
Nat+l Labor elations Bd. v. Noel Cannin",No. 1*-1*)1, *014 $: *))*090 U.S. >#ne *6, *0142 ....................................... (1
Nat+l Paint 5 Coatin"s Ass+n v. Cit of Chica"o,45 .(d 11*4 3th "ir. 19952................................................................................. 3
Ne( State /ce Co. v. Lieb$ann,*)5 U.S. *6* 19(*2 ........................................................................................... (5
enolds v. !nited States,9) U.S. 145 1)3)2 ............................................................................................ *0
odri"ue0 de 6ui7as v. Shearson8A$. )4press, /nc.,490 U.S. 433 19)92 ........................................................................................... *9
ust v. Sullivan,500 U.S. 13(, 19( 19912 .................................................................................... 14
Scarbrou"h v. %or"an Cnt. Bd. of )duc.,430 .(d *50 6th "ir. *0062 ............................................................................. 1)
Sch. Dist. of Abin"ton &(p. v. Sche$pp,(34 U.S. *0( 196(2 ........................................................................................... (1
See"$iller v. La3erkin Cit,5*) .(d 36* 10th "ir. *00)2 ........................................................................... *6
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
9/54
viii
Se$inole &ribe of #la. v. #lorida,513 U.S. 44 19962 ............................................................................................. (3
Skinner v. klaho$a e4 rel. *illia$son,
(16 U.S. 5(5 194*2 ........................................................................................... 11Steffan v. Perr,
41 .(d 633 .". "ir. 19942 .......................................................................... 3, 1)
!ll$ann v. !nited States,(50U.S. 4** 19562 ........................................................................................... *3
!nited States v. Lope0,514 U.S. 549 19952 ........................................................................................... (5
!nited States v. *indsor,1(( S. "t. *635 *01(2 ............................................................................... 9, *9-(0
!nited States. v. %endo0a,491 .*d 5(4 5th "ir. 19342 .............................................................................. (0
3arnu$ v.Brien,36( N.$.*d )6* Coa *0092 ............................................................................. )
*al$er v. Dep+t of Defense,5* .(d )51 10th "ir. 19952 .............................................................................. 1)
*ashin"ton v. Davis,4*6 U.S. **9 19362 .......................................................................................... *0
*ashin"ton v. 'lucksber",5*1 U.S. 30* 19932 ............................................................................ (, **, *(, *5
*illia$s v. Attorne 'en. of Ala.,(3) .(d 1*(* 11th "ir. *0042 .......................................................................... *6
*illia$son v. Lee ptical of kla., /nc.,(4) U.S. 4)( 19552 ........................................................................................... 15
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
10/54
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
11/54
&
$illiam N. ?s=ride, >r. H hilip . ri!=e+, 6uasi-Constitutional La(9Clear State$ent ules as Constitutional La($akin",45 ;and. :. 7ev. 59( 199*2 .............................................................................. (6
%he ederalist No. 45>ames adison2 "linton 7ossiter ed. 19612 ..................................................... 4
Sherif iris, 7oert . eore H 7+an %. Anderson, *hat /s%arria"e:, (4 .:. H #. olB+ *45 *0112 .............................................. 16
>esse raham, >onathan o#rnalof ersonalit+ and So!ial s+!holo+ 10*9 *0092 ........................................ 16-13
>onathan esse raham, *hen %oralit pposes 1ustice9Conservatives Have %oral /ntuitions &hat Liberals %a Not eco"ni0e,*0 So!ial >#sti!e 7esear!h 9) *0032 ................................................................. 16
Cnstit#te for Ameri!an ;al#es,%arria"e and the La(9 A State$ent of Principles*0062 ...................................... 16
i!hael $. !"onnell, &he Constitution and Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e,$all St. >. ar!h *1, *01(2 .............................................................................. (6
i!hael $. !"onnell, &he /$portance of Hu$ilit in 1udicial evie(9A Co$$ent on onald D(orkin+s ;%oral eadin"< of theConstitution, 65 ordham :. 7ev. 1*69 19932 .............................................. (5-(6
i!hael $. !"onnell, &he i"ht to Die and the 1urisprudence of&radition, 1993 Utah :. 7ev. 665 ................................................................. *(, *5
:a#ren!e
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
12/54
&i
". $riht,La( of #ederal Courts*d ed. 19302 ..................................................... *)
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
13/54
1
efendants-Appellants 7i!= err+, re Aott, and avid :a=e+ !ol-
le!tivel+, Ithe StateJ2 respe!tf#ll+ appeal the distri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+-
in8#n!tion order of er#ar+ *6, *014.
Statement of !urisdiction
%he distri!t !o#rt entered a preliminar+ in8#n!tion on er#ar+ *6, *014.
%he State filed a timel+ noti!e of appeal on er#ar+ *3, *014. %his "o#rt
has 8#risdi!tion to revie the order #nder *) U.S.". G 1*9*a212. %he dis-
tri!t !o#rtBs s#8e!t-matter 8#risdi!tion rested on *) U.S.". G 1((1.
Statement of te Issue
oes the o#rteenth Amendment deprive the States of their a#thorit+ to
define marriae as the #nion of one man and one omanK
Statement of te Case
Cn *005, the people of %e&as voted + a 36 per!ent to *4 per!ent marin
to amend their !onstit#tion to define marriae as Isolel+ the #nion of one
man and one oman.J %he amendment also prohiits the State and its s#-
divisions from !reatin or re!oniDin same-se& marriaes. See%e&. "onst.
art. C, G (*. %he %e&as amil+ "ode prohiits the iss#an!e of marriae li-
!enses to same-se& !o#ples. %e&. am. "ode G *.0012. Ct also provides that
ILaM marriae eteen persons of the same se& or a !ivil #nion is !ontrar+ to
the p#li! poli!+ of this state and is void,J and prohiits re!onition of o#t-
of-state same-se& marriaes or !ivil #nions./d.G 6.*042.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
14/54
*
%he plaintiffs !ontend that these las !olle!tivel+, %e&asBs marriae
las2 violate the d#e-pro!ess and e#al-prote!tion !la#ses of the o#rteenth
Amendment. %he distri!t !o#rt entered a preliminar+ in8#n!tion after hold-
in that %e&asBs marriae las fail rational-asis revie and holdin, in the
alternative, that same-se& marriae #alifies as a If#ndamentalJ s#stantive-
d#e-pro!ess riht. See 7OA.1995-*04*. %he distri!t !o#rt sta+ed its order
pendin appeal. See7OA.*04*.
Summar" of te Argument
%his !ase is not ao#t hether %e&as sho#ld re!oniDe same-se& mar-
riae. Ct is ao#t the #estion of ho de!ides. %here are rational, tho#htf#l
ar#ments on oth sides of the politi!al deate ao#t hether to lealiDe
same-se& marriae. %hat deate sho#ld e alloed to !ontin#e amon voters
and ithin demo!rati!all+ ele!ted leislat#res. Under the United States
"onstit#tion, the de!ision elons to the people of %e&as and their ele!tedrepresentatives, not the federal !o#rts.
%e&asBs marriae las are rooted in a asi! realit+ of h#man
life' pro!reation re#ires a male and a female. %o people of the same se&
!annot, + themselves, pro!reate. All the ?#al rote!tion "la#se re#ires is
that %e&asBs marriae las e rationall+ related to a leitimate state interest.
%e&asBs marriae las easil+ satisf+ that standard. %he StateBs re!onition
and en!o#raement of opposite-se& marriaes in!reases the li=elihood that
nat#rall+ pro!reative !o#ples ill prod#!e !hildren, and that the+ ill do so
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
15/54
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
16/54
4
the opposite' the vie of marriae deepl+ rooted in o#r histor+ and tradition
is that marriae !an e&ist onleteen one man and one oman.
inall+, %e&asBs marriae las do not !onfli!t ith an+ de!ision of the
S#preme "o#rt. %he holdins of Lovin", La(rence, and *indsor stop ell
short of re#irin same-se& marriae in all 50 States. %he plaintiffs o#ld
li=e this "o#rt to e4tendthe holdins of those !ases. /#t a !o#rt !annot e&-
tend those !ases asent a shoin that %e&asBs marriae las !onfli!t ith
the Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not presented an ar#ment ased on
the "onstit#tion. %heir distri!t-!o#rt riefin is a poli!+ ar#ment for h+
same-se& marriae sho#ld e leal, and hile the+ attempt to !reate a leal
veneer + dis!#ssin S#preme "o#rt de!isions, the+ !annot es!ape the fa!t
that %e&asBs marriae las' 12 do not !onfli!t ith an+ de!ision of the S#-
preme "o#rt *2 do not !onfli!t ith an+ lan#ae in the "onstit#tion and
(2 do not !onfli!t ith an+ lonstandin pra!ti!e or tradition.
Altho#h the "onstit#tion does not re#ire the State to permit same-se&
marriae, the "onstit#tion does provide the processto e #sed for resolvin
disareements over iss#es s#!h as same-se& marriae' federalism and demo!-
ra!+. %he ramers estalished a overnment that leaves the vast ma8orit+ of
de!isions ith the States. See%he ederalist No. 45, at *9* >ames adison2
"linton 7ossiter ed. 19612 I%he poers deleated + the proposed "onsti-
t#tion to the federal overnment, are fe and defined. %hose hi!h are to
remain in the State overnments are n#mero#s and indefinite.J2. And the
"onstit#tion imposes e&tensive s#perma8oritarian h#rdles on those ho see=
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
17/54
5
to !reate ne !onstit#tional rihts. SeeU.S. "onst. art. ;. Some people ma+
disli=e federalism as a means for resolvin o#r disareements, e!a#se it
permits one State to adopt poli!ies that people in other States ma+ disap-
prove. /#t the entire point of the "onstit#tionBs federalist str#!t#re is to en-
ale States and !itiDens ith different vies on important matters to !o-e&ist
o#r "onstit#tion Iis made for people of f#ndamentall+ differin vies.J
Lochner v. Ne( 2ork, 19) U.S. 45, 36 19052 ., dissentin2.
Argument
;ies on same-se& marriae are !hanin. %he+ ma+ !ontin#e to !hane.
%he+ ma+ not. %hose on oth sides of the p#li! deate elieve passionatel+
in their !a#se and see= to !onvin!e their fello !itiDens of its merits. As im-
portant as this deate is for o#r nation, its o#t!ome is not di!tated + the
"onstit#tion, and it sho#ld not e resolved + the federal !o#rts. A state does
not violate the ?#al rote!tion "la#se hen the distin!tions dran + itslas are rationall+ rooted in iolo+. %he #e ro!ess "la#se does not afford
rihts that are not deepl+ rooted in the histor+ and traditions of o#r nation.
And no de!ision of the S#preme "o#rt interpretin these !onstit#tional pro-
visions re#ires States to re!oniDe same-se& marriaes. Cndeed, the onl+
S#preme "o#rt de!ision on point holds that same-se& marriae is not a !on-
stit#tional riht.See Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. )10 193*2.
?ndin the vioro#s !ivi! deate on same-se& marriae + for!in all 50
States into a !o#rt-ordered, one-siDe-fits-all sol#tion is not the resol#tion o#r
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
18/54
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
19/54
3
fail rational-asis revie e!a#se it is not made ith mathemati!al ni!et+ or
e!a#se in pra!ti!e it res#lts in some ine#alit+.J2 !itation and internal #o-
tation mar=s omitted2 Haden v. Paterson, 594 .(d 150, 131 *d "ir. *0102
IL7Mational asis revie allos leislat#res to a!t in!rementall+ and to pass
las that are over and #nder2 in!l#sive.J2.
Se!ond, rational-asis revie does not re#ire a State to prod#!e evi-
den!e that a la ill a!hieve its o8e!tives. See Heller, 509 U.S. at (*0 IA
State . . . has no oliation to prod#!e eviden!e to s#stain the rationalit+ of a
stat#tor+ !lassifi!ation.J2 Beach Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at (15 holdin that a
leislative de!ision Iis not s#8e!t to !o#rtroom fa!tfindin and ma+ e
ased on rational spe!#lation #ns#pported + eviden!e or empiri!al dataJ2.
%hird, rational-asis revie does not allo !o#rts to invalidate a la +
eihin eviden!e or resolvin disp#ted #estions of fa!t. %he mere e4istence
of disareement on an empiri!al #estion is eno#h to estalish a Ireasona-
l+ !on!eivale state of fa!ts that !o#ld provide a rational asis.J Beach
Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at (1( see also Nat+l Paint 5 Coatin"s Ass+n v. Cit of
Chica"o, 45 .(d 11*4, 11*3 3th "ir. 19952 IL%Mo sa+ that s#!h a disp#te e&-
istsindeed, to sa+ that one ma+ e i$a"inedis to re#ire a de!ision for
the state.J2 Steffan v. Perr, 41 .(d 633, 6)5 .". "ir. 19942 ICt is hard to
imaine a more deferential standard than rational asis.J2.
%he distri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis anal+sis violates ea!h of these pre!epts
of rational-asis revieall of hi!h have een estalished in indin S#-
preme "o#rt pre!edent. Ct !ontradi!tsHeller+ demandin a pre!ise means-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 19 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
20/54
)
ends fit eteen the oal of en!o#rain responsile pro!reation and the de-
!ision to ithhold marriae from same-se& !o#ples. See7OA.*0*1 re8e!tin
the StateBs pro!reation-fo!#sed rationale e!a#se the State re!oniDes mar-
riaes involvin Ipost-menopa#sal omen, infertile individ#als, and indi-
vid#als ho !hoose to refrain from pro!reatin.J2. Ct violates Helleraain +
fa#ltin the State for failin to prod#!e Ievidentiar+ s#pportJ for its !laims.
See7OA.*019 Iefendants have not provided an+ evidentiar+ s#pport for
their assertion that den+in marriae to same-se& !o#ples positivel+ affe!ts
!hildrearin.J2.1
And it inores Beach Co$$unications + p#rportin to re-
solve disp#ted empiri!al #estions and rel+in on findins of fa!t entered +
other distri!t !o#rts. See7OA.*019 Ilaintiffs presented an a#ndan!e of
eviden!e and resear!h, !onfirmed + o#r independent resear!h, s#pportin
the proposition that the interests of !hildren are served e#all+ + same-se&
parents and opposite-se& parents.J2 #otin 3arnu$ v.Brien, 36( N.$.*d
)6*, )99 Coa *00922. %he distri!t !o#rt never so m#!h as mentionedHeller
or Beach Co$$unications, even tho#h the State !ited ea!h !ase repeatedl+
efore the distri!t !o#rt. See7OA.1603-0). /#t the prolems ith the dis-
tri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis anal+sis o e+ond its disreard of indin S#-
preme "o#rt pre!edent.
1%he efendants did not ma=e this assertion in the distri!t !o#rt, m#!h less see= to s#p-port it ith eviden!e. %he distri!t !o#rtBs mista=en attri#tion of this ar#ment to theState is diffi!#lt to e&plain.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
21/54
9
%he distri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis dis!#ssion appears to rest on a elief
that those ho oppose same-se& marriae are irrational or pre8#di!edhen
the disareements a!t#all+ arise from differen!es in val#e 8#dments and dif-
ferin vies over the ansers to disp#ted empiri!al #estions. See /r#!e A.
A!=erman, Beond Carolene Products, 9)
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
22/54
10
sers to these #estions, and it is that disareementnot a desire to dis-
!riminate aainst an+one or to #ndermine the instit#tion of marriaethat
#nderlies the same-se& marriae deate. Under one vie, marriae is primar-
il+ defined as a p#li! solemniDation of the m#t#al love and !ommitment e-
teen to people. or man+ ho hold this vie, the se& of the to people
involved has no relevan!e to hether a !onsens#al, lovin relationship
sho#ld #alif+ as a Imarriae.J Cndeed, from the perspe!tive of one ho
vies marriae this a+, it is eas+ to see ho there seems to e no leitimate
reason to den+ same-se& !o#ples a!!ess to the leal instit#tion of marriae.
Under the !ompetin vie, marriae is ine&tri!al+ lin=ed to the ioloi-
!al !omplementarit+ eteen men and omen. On this vie, marriae is the
!reation of a #ni#e leal #nion eteen to people ho on their on !an-
not reprod#!e #t ho toether !an e the so#r!e of ne life. or those ho
vie marriae this a+, the leal instit#tion of marriae e&ists primaril+ to
en!o#rae the orderl+ propaation of the h#man ra!e + !hannelin nat#rall+
pro!reative heteroseal a!tivit+ into stale, responsile relationships. As
orth+ a p#rpose as the p#li! affirmation of love and !ommitment is, that
aspe!t of marriae does not define the instit#tion for those ho hold this
vie.
%he pro!reation-fo!#sed vie of marriae is not as idel+ held as it on!e
as. /#t that does not ma=e it irrational. Ct has een predominant in o#r so-
!iet+ for most of its histor+, and it is refle!ted in the lan#ae often #sed +
the S#preme "o#rt to des!rie marriae, in!l#din in one of the "o#rtBs
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
23/54
11
seminal !ivil rihts !ases, on hi!h the plaintiffs pla!e reat eiht. See, e.".,
Lovin" v. 3ir"inia, ()) U.S. 1, 1* 19632 Iarriae is . . . f#ndamental to o#r
ver+ e&isten!e and s#rvival.J2 Skinner v. klaho$a e4 rel. *illia$son, (16
U.S. 5(5, 541 194*2 ILMarriae and pro!reation are f#ndamental to the
ver+ e&isten!e and s#rvival of the Lh#manM ra!e.J2. or those ho hold this
vie, same-se& marriae is a !ontradi!tion in terms. No e#al-prote!tion
!laim arises at all, e!a#se marriae + its ver+ nat#re re#ires the presen!e
of a man and a oman, the inherentl+ !omplementar+ and ne!essar+ #ildin
lo!=s of h#man life.
/oth of these #nderstandins of marriae are rational. And the people of
a soverein State m#st !hoose hi!h vie ill overn them. %e&ans have
!hosen the traditional vie. /+ deemin that !hoi!e irrational and #n!onsti-
t#tional, the distri!t !o#rt arroated to itself the a#thorit+ to resolve the
!omple& so!ioloi!al, philosophi!al, and politi!al #estion of the nat#re and
primar+ p#rpose of marriae. And not onl+ did the !o#rt resolve that #es-
tion, it did so + de!larin the pro!reation-!entered vie of marriae to e
irrational. %here is no asis for s#!h a r#lin.
7eardless of oneBs perspe!tive on the nat#re of marriae, the ioloi!al
fa!ts that distin#ish opposite-se& !o#ples from same-se& !o#ples 8#stif+
%e&asBs marriae las #nder rational-asis revie. Opposite-se& relation-
ships have the potential to prod#!e #ni#e e&ternalities that do not res#lt
from same-se& relationships, hi!h ma=es #ni#e re#lation of opposite-se&
relationships eminentl+ rational. As !ompared to the relative stailit+ of a
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
24/54
1*
marriae, seal a!tivit+ amon opposite-se& !o#ples ho are not enaed in
stale relationships is more li=el+ to res#lt in !osts that m#st e orne + so-
!iet+. Ct is a asi! fa!t of life that h#man eins are often overned + their
passions. And hen the prod#!t of those passions !an e a !hild, the StateBs
interest in steerin those passions toard a responsile and stale o#tlet
!o#ld hardl+ e stroner. Same-se& !o#ples feel passion and love for one an-
other as ell. /#t !hildren are not the immediate and dire!t res#lt. %o the
!ontrar+, the !hildren of same-se& !o#ples are enerall+ the res#lt of the
lenth+ refle!tion and finan!ial investment re#ired to see= o#t ph+si!ian-
assisted fertiliDation, s#rroate parents, or adoption. %he StateBs de!ision to
re#late opposite-se& relationships thro#h marriae flos from a re!oni-
tion of the !osts imposed on so!iet+ hen the pro!reative poer of those re-
lationships is #sed irresponsil+, not from a desire to demean or harm an+-
one.
%he o8e!tion ma+ e raised that not all opposite-se& marriaes prod#!e
!hildren. Some !o#ples are infertile some are delieratel+ !hildless. /#t ra-
tional-asis revie does not re#ire a perfe!t fit eteen means and ends
the S#preme "o#rt has so held man+ times in !ases that the distri!t !o#rt i-
nored. See, e.".,Heller, 509 U.S. at (*1Dandrid"e v. *illia$s, (93 U.S. 431,
4)5 19302 ILAM State does not violate the ?#al rote!tion "la#se merel+
e!a#se the !lassifi!ations made + its las are imperfe!t.J2. Ct is eno#h if
the State !an sho that opposite-se& relationships are more li=el+ than same-
se& relationships to prod#!e !hildrenindeed, it is eno#h if one !o#ld ra-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 24 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
25/54
1(
tionall+ spe!#late that opposite-se& relationships $i"ht e more li=el+ than
same-se& relationships to prod#!e !hildren. See Beach Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at
(15 IL:Meislative !hoi!e Q ma+ e ased on rational spe!#lation #ns#p-
ported + eviden!e or empiri!al data.J2. %he plaintiffs do not den+ that one
!o#ld rationall+ hold this elief the+ do not even den+ that opposite-se&
!o#ples are more li=el+ than same-se& !o#ples to !reate ne offsprin. %hat
!on!edes that %e&asBs marriae las s#rvive rational-asis revie. And in all
events, the plaintiffs and the distri!t !o#rt are ron to assert that re!oniD-
in infertile or !hildless opposite-se& marriaes fails to advan!e the StateBs
interest in en!o#rain stale environments for pro!reation. /+ re!oniDin
and en!o#rain the lifelon !ommitment eteen a man and omaneven
hen the+ do not prod#!e offsprinthe State en!o#raes others ho (ill
pro!reate to enter into the marriae relationship.
Opposite-se& !o#ples often !annot help #t prod#!e offsprin, hi!h
ma=es en!o#rain the formation of stale leal #nions eteen men and
omen a #ni#el+ a!#te !on!ern for so!iet+and therefore for the State.
7e#lation and promotion of opposite-se& marriaes in!reases the li=elihood
that !hildren ill e orn into stale environments here the+ are raised +
their mother and their father. Ct is s#rel+ rational to elieve that this is ood
for the !hildrenBs ell-ein. And it is also ood for the State, e!a#se it in-
!reases the li=elihood that parents, rather than so!iet+, ill ear the !ost of
raisin these !hildren. 7e!oniDin same-se& marriae does not f#rther this
oal to the same e&tent. And opposite-se& marriae advan!es this interest
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 25 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
26/54
14
even hen one of the partners to the marriae is infertile or the oman is e-
+ond !hildearin +ears. /+ en!o#rain faithf#lness and monoam+ e-
teen a fertile person and an infertile opposite-se& spo#se, these marria-
eseven tho#h infertileserve to !hannel oth spo#sesB sealit+ into a
!ommitted relationship rather than toard seal ehavior that, for the fer-
tile spo#se at least, ma+ res#lt in !osts that are #ltimatel+ orne + so!iet+.
%he distri!t !o#rt ar#ed that re!oniDin same-se& marriae ill do
nothin to under$inethe StateBs interests in promotin responsile pro!rea-
tion, #t that is irrelevant hen !ond#!tin rational-asis revie. A State !an
rationall+ !on!l#de that re!oniDin same-se& marriaes ill not f#rther
those interestsor that it ill not f#rther these interests to the same e&tent
as opposite-se& marriae. :eal marriae is in some a+s a overnment s#-
sid+, and a State ma+ reserve its s#sidies for ehaviors that are most li=el+
to enerate the positive e&ternalities that the State see=s to promote. See
Nat+l )ndo($ent for the Arts v. #inle, 5*4 U.S. 569, 53* 199)2 ust v. Sul-
livan, 500 U.S. 13(, 19( 19912 overnment ma+ emplo+ sele!tive s#sidies
Ito en!o#rae !ertain a!tivities it elieves to e in the p#li! interestJ2
Harris v. %cae, 44) U.S. *93, (15 19)02 states ma+ #se I#ne#al s#sidi-
DationJ to en!o#rae Ia!tivit+ deemed in the p#li! interestJ2.
%his is not to sa+or even to s#estthat same-se& marriaes do not
enerate an+ enefits for so!iet+. Some have ar#ed, for e&le that the
re!onition of same-se& marriae ill prod#!e e!onomi! enefits, s#!h as in-
!reasin ho#sehold ealth. See, e."., $illiam N. ?s=ride, &he Case for Sa$e-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 26 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
27/54
15
Se4 %arria"e6) 1st ed. 19962. As stated aove, there are ar#ments leisla-
t#res !an !onsider in de!idin hether same-se& marriae sho#ld e leal.
/#t on rational-asis revie, it is eno#h to sho that opposite-se& marriaes
prod#!e so$eso!ietal enefits to a "reater e4tentthan same-se& marriaes
indeed, it is eno#h if one !o#ld rationall+ elieve that this $i"hte the !ase.
$hatever the enefits of same-se& marriae, there is no #estion that oppo-
site-se& marriaes prod#!e different and #ni#e so!ietal enefits related to
pro!reationand that opposite-se& marriaes advan!e those interests to a
reater e&tent than same-se& marriaes. On rational-asis revie, a State
does not violate the ?#al rote!tion "la#se + !hoosin to p#rs#e some so-
!ietal enefits over others. See *illia$son v. Lee ptical of kla., /nc., (4)
U.S. 4)(, 4)9 19552 I%he leislat#re ma+ sele!t one phase of one field and
appl+ a remed+ there, nele!tin the othersJ itho#t violatin e#al prote!-
tion2.
%his is all part and par!el of the pro!reation-fo!#sed vie of marriae.
%he State does not provide leal enefits toand impose finan!ial #rdens
li=e !omm#nit+ propert+ and spo#sal maintenan!e onmarried !o#ples
simpl+ to re!oniDe their love and !ommitment to one another. Cnstead, the
primar+ p#rpose of leal marriae in %e&as is to enerate positive e&ternali-
ties and avoid neative e&ternalities2 for so!iet+ + en!o#rain responsile
ehavior amon nat#rall+ pro!reative !o#ples, not to p#li!l+ re!oniDe the
love and !ommitment of to people. %his pro!reation-!entered perspe!tive
on marriae is ass#redl+ rational, and the vie that marriae inherentl+ re-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 27 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
28/54
16
#ires a man and a oman has een a edro!= of so!iet+ for tho#sands of
+ears in ever+ !orner of the loe. $hile it is emra!ed + man+ reliio#s
people, it lon pre-dates "hristianit+ or an+ other modern reliion. And this
vie !ontin#es to e held + man+ tho#htf#l and distin#ished s!holars as
ell as millions of ordinar+ Ameri!ans. See, e."., $itherspoon Cnstit#te,%ar-
ria"e and the Public 'ood9 &en Principles*00)2, http'it.l+1D=m0al sined
+ over 30 s!holars2 Cnstit#te for Ameri!an ;al#es,%arria"e and the La(9 A
State$ent of Principles *0062, http'it.l+1?hf3# sined + more than
100 s!holars2.
%he distri!t !o#rtBs fail#re to #nderstand h+ so man+ of his fello
Ameri!ans oppose same-se& marriae sho#ld not have led the distri!t !o#rt
to de!lare their eliefs irrational. Cnstead, it sho#ld have led the !o#rt to read
some of the man+ reasoned defenses of traditional marriaenone of hi!h
the !o#rt so m#!h as a!=noleded let alone ref#ted2. See, e."., Sherif ir-
is, 7oert . eore H 7+an %. Anderson, *hat /s %arria"e:, (4 .:.
H #. olB+ *45 *0112 eore $. ent, >r., &raditional %arria"e9 Still
*orth Defendin", 1) /EU >. #. :. 419 *0042 see also >onathan esse raham, *hen %oralit pposes 1ustice9 Conservatives Have %oral /ntu-
itions &hat Liberals %a Not eco"ni0e, *0 So!ial >#sti!e 7esear!h 9), 111R1*
*0032 ILOMn the iss#e of a+ marriae it is !r#!ial that lierals #nderstand
the !onservative vie of so!ial instit#tions. "onservatives enerall+ elieve
Q that h#man eins need str#!t#re and !onstraint to flo#rish, and that so-
!ial instit#tions provide these enefits. Q %hese are not !raD+ ideas.J2 >esse
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 28 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
29/54
13
raham, >onathan o#rnal of ersonalit+ and So!ial s+-
!holo+ 10*9 *0092. On rational-asis revie, the plaintiffsB #rden is to
neate ever conceivable rationale that miht e offered for a laand that
re#ires them at the ver+ least2 to ref#te ever+ defense that has een offered
for traditional marriae, as ell as s!holars s#!h as
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
30/54
1)
e!onomi! effi!ien!+ and !ons#mer elfare others thin= it sho#ld prote!t
Ismall dealers and orth+ menJ from !ompetitive mar=et for!es. Some e-
lieve that food la sho#ld p#rs#e liertarian aims others thin= it sho#ld
promote n#trition or ens#re the ethi!al treatment of animals. eople ho
disaree over these iss#es do not !all their opponentsB vies IirrationalJ or
I#n!onstit#tional.J Cnstead, the+ re!oniDe that their opponents are pro-
!eedin from a different normative frameor= that emphasiDes !ertain val-
#es over othersand the+ f#rther re!oniDe that rational people !an disaree
over hi!h val#es sho#ld ta=e priorit+. %hose ho s#pport traditional mar-
riae deserve similar !o#rtes+ from their fello parti!ipants in the onoin
demo!rati! deate ao#t same-se& marriae.
%he distri!t !o#rt did not appl+ heihtened s!r#tin+ to the plaintiffsB
e#al-prote!tion !laims, #t the plaintiffs are li=el+ to ar#e for it. %here is
no need to remand this #estion to the distri!t !o#rt, as heihtened s!r#tin+
is impermissile for man+ reasons. irst, neither the S#preme "o#rt nor this
"o#rt has ever held that seal orientation is a Is#spe!t !lassifi!ationJ that
triers heihtened s!r#tin+, and the overhelmin eiht of appellate a#-
thorit+ re8e!ts the idea. See, e."., Cook v. 'ates, 5*) .(d 4*, 6* 1st "ir.
*00)2 Scarbrou"h v. %or"an Cnt. Bd. of )duc., 430 .(d *50, *61 6th "ir.
*0062 Lofton v. Sec+ of Dept. of Children and #a$il Servs., (5) .(d )04,
)1) 11th "ir. *0042 *al$er v. Dep+t of Defense, 5* .(d )51, )54 10th "ir.
19952 Steffan v. Perr, 41 .(d at 304.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 30 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
31/54
19
Se!ond, the ar#ments for s#spe!t-!lass stat#s are (eakerno than the+
ere at the time of these appellate-!o#rt r#lins. %he politi!al infl#en!e of
the a+-rihts movement has onl+ ron sin!e the time of the man+ !o#rt
de!isions re8e!tin s#spe!t-!lass stat#s. %he movementBs man+ re!ent s#!-
!esses are ell =non. %o !ite 8#st to e&les, "onress repealed the mil-
itar+Bs IonBt As=, onBt %ellJ poli!+, and re!entl+ the resident sined an
e&e!#tive order prohiitin seal-orientation dis!rimination + federal !on-
tra!tors. ore and more ele!ted offi!ialsin!l#din the residentare an-
no#n!in their s#pport for same-se& marriae, and Attorne+ eneral
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
32/54
*0
site-se& spo#se as an+one else in the State. And all persons in %e&as
reardless of their seal orientationare ineliile to marr+ a same-se&
spo#se. A la that applies e#all+ to ever+one does not dis!riminate or den+
Ie#al prote!tionJ simpl+ e!a#se some ro#p of people ants to violate it.
See %cCullen v. Coakle, 1(4 S. "t. *51), *5(4 *0142 fa!iall+ ne#tral #ffer
Done is Ineither !ontent nor viepoint ased,J even tho#h the onl+ spee!h
affe!ted o#ld !ome from one parti!#lar viepoint2 see also enolds v.
!nited States, 9) U.S. 145 1)3)2 )$p+t Div., Dep+t of Hu$an es. of r. v.
S$ith, 494 U.S. )3*, )3) 19902. %e&asBs marriae las ma+ res#lt in a dis-
parate impa!t on people of a !ertain seal orientation, #t disparate-impa!t
!laims are not !oniDale in e#al-prote!tion la. See *ashin"ton v. Davis,
4*6 U.S. **9, *4* 19362.
Lovin" v. 3ir"iniadoes not !hane the fa!t that %e&asBs marriae las
appl+ e#all+ to ever+one. Lovin"str#!= don ;iriniaBs anti-mis!eenation
la, and altho#h ;irinia defended its la + ar#in that it applied e#all+
to memers of all ra!es, the "o#rt nevertheless invalidated the stat#te e-
!a#se it !ontained an e&pli!it ra!ial !lassifi!ation. See()) U.S. at )-9. 7a!ial
!lassifi!ations are #n!onstit#tionaleven hen the stat#te p#rports to im-
pose a #niform r#leand a State !an no more defend an anti-mis!eenation
stat#te on the ro#nd that it applies to ever+one than it !o#ld defend a sere-
ation ordinan!e on these ro#nds. See Lovin", ()) U.S. at ) IL$Me re8e!t
the notion that the mere e#al appli!ationB of a stat#te !ontainin ra!ial
!lassifi!ations is eno#h to remove the !lassifi!ations from the o#rteenth
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 32 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
33/54
*1
AmendmentBs pros!ription of all invidio#s ra!ial dis!riminations.J2 Bro(n
v. Bd. of )duc., (43 U.S. 4)(, 495 19542 re8e!tin Iseparate #t e#al.J2.
Lovin"!onfirmed, hoever, that onlstat#tes ith ra!ial !lassifi!ations ill
enerate e#al-prote!tion prolems if the la otherise applies e#all+ to
ever+one. SeeLovin", ()) U.S. at 9 ICn these !ases, involvin distin!tions
not dran a!!ordin to ra!e, the "o#rt has merel+ as=ed hether there is
an+ rational fo#ndation for the dis!riminations, and has deferred to the is-
dom of the state leislat#res. Cn the !ase at ar, hoever, e deal ith stat-
#tes !ontainin ra!ial !lassifi!ations, and the fa!t of e#al appli!ation does
not imm#niDe the stat#te from the ver+ heav+ #rden of 8#stifi!ation hi!h
the o#rteenth Amendment has traditionall+ re#ired of state stat#tes dran
a!!ordin to ra!e.J2.
%e&asBs marriae las do not den+ the plaintiffs the e#al prote!tion of
the las. %he+ ma=e rational distin!tions for leitimate reasons, and the
?#al rote!tion "la#se does not prohiit s#!h distin!tions. %he pro!rea-
tion-!entered vie of marriae on hi!h %e&as la rests is no less rational
than the alternative vie of marriae espo#sed + the plaintiffs and the dis-
tri!t !o#rt. %he distri!t !o#rt disareed ith %e&as votersB vie of the na-
t#re and p#rposes of marriae, #t that disareement !annot s#pport a !on-
stit#tional holdin.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 33 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
34/54
**
II# Te$ass %arriage La&s 'o Not (iolate Te'ue*Process Clause#
%he distri!t !o#rt held that same-se& marriae is a If#ndamentalJ !on-
stit#tional riht, #t the !o#rt admitted that there is no lan#ae in the "on-
stit#tion estalishin this riht. 7OA.*0*3. So the distri!t !o#rt relied on the
!ontroversial do!trine =non as Is#stantive d#e pro!ess.J See >ohn
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
35/54
*(
el of eneralit+ at hi!h the riht is defined. See id. U.S. "onst. art. ; i-
!hael $. !"onnell, &he i"ht to Die and the 1urisprudence of &radition, 1993
Utah :. 7ev. 665 ran=
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
36/54
*4
%here is also no stoppin point to this astra!tion mane#ver. Cf !o#rts
and litiants !an !reate a !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae + defin-
in it as part of a more eneral Iriht to marr+,J then an!ond#!t that has
een traditionall+ prohiited !an e!ome a !onstit#tional riht simpl+ + re-
definin it at a hiher level of astra!tionperhaps as part of a Iriht to e
let aloneJ or a Ifreedom not to !onform.J See Bo(ers v. Hard(ick, 43) U.S.
1)6, 199 19)62 /la!=m#n, >., dissentin2 %ichael H. v. 'erald D., 491 U.S.
110, 141 19)92 /rennan, >., dissentin2. erhaps the plaintiffs ill respond
+ sa+in that !o#rts need not ta=e the astra!tion mane#ver that far the+
sho#ld enae in astra!tion onl+ to the e&tent ne!essar+ to !onstit#tionaliDe
the rihts that the+ ant s#!h as a riht to same-se& marriae2 and no f#r-
ther. /#t that o#ld onl+ !onfirm the #tter aritrariness of their approa!h to
s#stantive d#e pro!ess.
%he %enth "ir!#it #sed the same astra!tion falla!+ in its re!ent de!ision
disapprovin UtahBs marriae las' Ct de!lared a eneraliDed Iriht to mar-
r+J to e Ideepl+ rootedJ in histor+ and tradition, and then anno#n!ed that
this Ideepl+ rootedJ riht in!l#des the riht to marr+ an+ person of oneBs
!hoi!e, in!l#din a same-se& partner. See Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 1(-413),
*014 $: *)6)044, at T11 10th "ir. >#ne *5, *0142. %he %enth "ir!#it
a!=noleded 'lucksber"Bs I!aref#l des!riptionJ re#irement, #t ar#ed
that it !o#ld disreard 'lucksber"at least in !ases involvin !hallenes to a
StateBs marriae lase!a#se some pre-'lucksber"!ases Lovin",=ablocki,
and &urner2 had Idis!#ssed the riht to marr+ at a roader level of enerali-
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 36 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
37/54
*5
t+.J /d.at T1*. A!!ordin to the %enth "ir!#it, those r#lins allo federal
!o#rts to inore 'lucksber" and impose same-se& marriae on the States e-
!a#se the opinions did not o o#t of their a+ to e&pli!itl+ reiterate hat the
S#preme "o#rt had alread+ held in Baker v. Nelsonthat the Iriht to mar-
r+J !an e&tend onl+ to opposite-se& !o#ples. %hat is not a valid e&!#se for
ref#sin to follo the S#preme "o#rtBs instr#!tions in 'lucksber". %he dis-
!#ssion of the Iriht to marr+J inLovin",=ablocki, and &urnerpro!eeded in
eneral terms e!a#se no one had ar#ed or even tho#ht2 that this riht
!o#ld e&tend to same-se& !o#plesnot e!a#se the 8#sti!es ere invitin f#-
t#re !o#rts to impose same-se& marriae on the States. No one !ontends that
Lovin", =ablocki, or &urner estalished a !onstit#tional riht to same-se&
marriae, hi!h means that an+ dis!#ssion of the Iriht to marr+J in those
!ases $ust e interpreted to refer onl+ to opposite-se& marriaethe onl+
t+pe of ImarriaeJ that as =non to e&ist at the time of those de!isions.
And even if the %enth "ir!#it ere !orre!t to find sinifi!an!e in the fa!t
thatLovin",=ablocki, and &urnerdes!ried the Iriht to marr+J in eneral-
iDed terms, 'lucksber"p#t an end to the past pra!ti!e of #sin astra!tion to
invent If#ndamental rihtsJ that have no asis in !onstit#tional te&t or his-
tori!al pra!ti!e. See 'lucksber", 5*1 U.S. at 3*0, 3*5 !"onnell, &he i"ht to
Die and the 1urisprudence of &radition, 1993 Utah :. 7ev. 665. One !annot
disreard the S#preme "o#rtBs re8e!tion of a methodolo+ + pointin to
earlier opinions that deplo+ the rep#diated methodolo+.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 37 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
38/54
*6
%he %enth "ir!#it also invo=ed La(renceas an e&!#se to inore 'lucks-
ber", #tLa(rencedid not estalish a f#ndamental liert+ interest and did not
appl+ heihtened s!r#tin+ as even the %enth "ir!#it a!=noleded2. See
Kitchen, *014 $: *)6)044, at T*0 See"$iller v. La3erkin Cit, 5*) .(d
36*, 331 10th "ir. *00)2 ILNMohere inLa(rencedoes the "o#rt des!rie
the riht at iss#e in that !ase as a f#ndamental riht or a f#ndamental liert+
interestJ2see also *illia$s v. Attorne 'en. of Ala., (3) .(d 1*(*, 1*(6 11th
"ir. *0042. La(rencetherefore ives no leverae to the plaintiffsB efforts to
ma=e same-se& marriae into a f#ndamental riht s#8e!t to heihtened s!r#-
tin+. %he %enth "ir!#itBs opinion also leads to the staerin !on!l#sion that
everrestri!tion on the riht to marr+ m#st e s#8e!t to stri!t s!r#tin+. Ct is
not !lear ho other lonstandin restri!tions on the riht to marr+ !o#ld s#r-
vive that standardand the %enth "ir!#it did not e&plain ho the+ !o#ld.
inall+, the distri!t !o#rt and the %enth "ir!#itBs approa!h to Is#stan-
tive d#e pro!essJ violates Arti!le ; of the "onstit#tion. ?a!h of their r#lins
!reates a !onstit#tional riht that has no te&t#al asis in the do!#ment, see
7OA.*0*3 IL%Mhe riht to marr+ is not e&pli!itl+ mentioned in the te&t of
the "onstit#tionJ2, and that is not Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+
and tradition.J Cn doin this, the distri!t !o#rt and the %enth "ir!#it are #s-
in Is#stantive d#e pro!essJ to enfor!e rihts that some 8#des elieve
shoulde prote!ted + the "onstit#tion, #t that la!= s#ffi!ient pop#lar s#p-
port to e !odified as an Arti!le ; amendment to the "onstit#tion. Eet Arti-
!le ; prote!ts the opponents of same-se& marriaeand the opponents of all
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 38 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
39/54
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
40/54
*)
III#Te Plaintiffs Claims Are Foreclosed B"
Ba+er ,# Nelson#
?ven if one elieves that the S#preme "o#rt sho#ld #ltimatel+ re#ire
the States to permit same-se& marriaes, the distri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+ in-
8#n!tion sho#ld still e va!ated e!a#se Baker v. Nelson remains a indin
pre!edent on this iss#e. Cn Baker, the innesota S#preme "o#rt re8e!ted a
!laim of a riht to same-se& marriae #nder the federal !onstit#tion. 409 U.S.
)10. On appeal, a #nanimo#s U.S. S#preme "o#rtthree +ears afterLovin"
v. 3ir"iniaheld that a !laimed !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae did
not even present a s#stantial federal #estion. /d. %his =ind of s#mmar+
disposition as !ommon hen, prior to 19)), the S#preme "o#rt as re-
#ired to hear all appeals from state s#preme !o#rt r#lins presentin federal
!onstit#tional #estions. See*) U.S.". G 1*53 19))2. Ct is ell-estalished
that this =ind of ILsM#mmar+ disposition of an appeal, . . . either + affir-
man!e or + dismissal for ant of a s#stantial federal #estion, is a disposi-
tion on the $erits.J Hicks v. %iranda, 4** U.S. ((*, (44 19352 #otin ".
$riht, :a of ederal "o#rts 495 *d ed. 19302 emphasis added22. Cndeed,
the distri!t !o#rt a!=noleded that s#mmar+dispositions + the S#preme
"o#rt are Ipre!edential and indin on loer !o#rts.J 7OA.*009 !itin
%andel v.Bradle, 4(* U.S. 13(, 136 19332 per !#riam22. /#t it held that
Is#se#ent do!trinal and so!ietal developments sin!e 193* !ompel this
"o#rt to !on!l#de that the s#mmar+ dismissal in Baker is no loner ind-
in.J 7OA.*009.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 40 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
41/54
*9
ederal distri!t !o#rts have no a#thorit+ to de!lare that a r#lin of the
S#preme "o#rt has een overr#led sub silentio+ later Ido!trinal develop-
ments.J See odri"ue0 de 6ui7as v. Shearson8A$. )4press, /nc., 490 U.S. 433,
4)4 19)92 ICf a pre!edent of this "o#rt has dire!t appli!ation in a !ase, +et
appears to rest on reasons re8e!ted in some other line of de!isions, the "o#rt
of Appeals sho#ld follo the !ase hi!h dire!tl+ !ontrols, leavin to this
"o#rt the preroative of overr#lin its on de!isions.J2 A"ostini v. #elton,
5*1 U.S. *0(, *(3-() 19932 same2. %here is no do#t thatBakeris Ithe !ase
hi!h dire!tl+ !ontrols,J as it involved pre!isel+ the same iss#e presented +
the plaintiffs in this !ase. %he distri!t !o#rt did not present an ar#ment to
the !ontrar+. Cndeed, the distri!t !o#rt did not !ite or a!=nolede the S#-
preme "o#rtBs instr#!tions inodri"ue0 de 6ui7asandA"ostinieven tho#h
oth !ases ere !ited and e&plained in detail in the StateBs rief. %he plain-
tiffs also inored the StateBs relian!e on odri"ue0 de 6ui7asand A"ostini
apparentl+ ass#min that the S#preme "o#rtBs e&pli!it instr#!tions in those
!ases !an e inored so lon as there are opinions from other federal distri!t
!o#rts inorin those !ases. See7OA.13*3-*9.
?ven if one ere to entirel+ inore odri"ue0 de 6ui7asand A"ostinias
the distri!t !o#rt didthe distri!t !o#rt as ron to assert that *indsor
overr#led or even #ndermined Baker. Cf an+thin, *indsorreinfor!ed Baker
+ emphasiDin the need to safe#ard the StatesB Ihistori! and essential a#-
thorit+ to define the marital relationJ free from Ifederal intr#sion.J 1(( S.
"t. at *69* see also id.at *6)9-90 I/+ histor+ and tradition the definition
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 41 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
42/54
(0
and re#lation of marriae . . . has een treated as ein ithin the a#thorit+
and realm of the separate States.J2. Ct as pre!isel+ because the *indsor
"o#rt rearded marriae la as Ia virt#all+ e&!l#sive provin!e of the StatesJ
that it deemed OABs ref#sal to re!oniDe Ne Eor=Bs de!ision to permit
same-se& marriae an impermissile Ifederal intr#sion on state poer.J /d.
at *6)0, *69* internal #otation mar=s omitted2.
%he distri!t !o#rt also erred + s#estin thatHollin"s(orth v. Perr, 1((
S. "t. *65* *01(2, #ndermines Baker. See7OA.*010. Appellate 8#risdi!tion
m#st e&ist beforean appellate !o#rt !an even !onsider hether a s#stantial
federal #estion e&ists. See1ohn v. Paullin, *(1 U.S. 5)(, 5)5 191(2 ILCMf Q
its appellate 8#risdi!tion as not properl+ invo=ed, no ederal #estion as
efore it for de!ision.J2 !nited States. v. %endo0a, 491 .*d 5(4, 5(6 5th
"ir. 19342 des!riin appellate 8#risdi!tion as a threshold iss#e2. /e!a#se
the S#preme "o#rt held inHollin"s(orththat the petitioners la!=ed standin
to appeal, the "o#rt la!=ed a#thorit+ to opine on hether the plaintiffs had
presented a s#stantial federal #estion.
inall+, even if post-Baker S#preme "o#rt r#lins have estalished
that allein a !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae no presents a
Is#stantialJ federal #estion, no post-Bakerde!ision has overr#ledBakerBs
!on!l#sion that same-se& marriae is not a !onstit#tional riht. &hatholdin
on the merits remains indin on ever+ federal !o#rt, and the distri!t !o#rt
provided no 8#stifi!ation for disreardin it.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 42 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
43/54
(1
I(# Te Plaintiffs Claims Find No Su--ort InTe Te$t Or .istor" Of Te FourteentAmendment#
%he plaintiffsB and the distri!t !o#rtBs interpretation of the o#rteenth
Amendment !ontradi!ts not onl+ the oriinal #nderstandin of the amend-
ment #t also more than a !ent#r+ of post-ratifi!ation histor+. See, e."., Her-
nande0 v. obles, )55 N.?.*d 1, ) N.E. *0062 ILCMt as an a!!epted tr#th
for almost ever+one ho ever lived, in an+ so!iet+ in hi!h marriae e&isted,
that there !o#ld e marriaes onl+ eteen parti!ipants of different se&.J2.
Eet the distri!t !o#rt !ompletel+ inored this defe!t in the plaintiffsB !laim.
Some ma+ elieve that 8#des sho#ld entirel+ inore histor+ hen interpret-
in !onstit#tional provisions. /#t e find it hard to elieve that an+ !o#rt
o#ld a!!ept the notion that histor+ is irrelevant to !onstit#tional interpreta-
tion no 8#rist of hi!h e are aare has ever espo#sed s#!h a vie. See Sch.
Dist. of Abin"ton &(p. v. Sche$pp, (34 U.S. *0(, *94 196(2 /rennan, >.,
!on!#rrin2 IL%Mhe line e m#st dra eteen the permissile and the im-
permissile is one hi!h a!!ords ith histor+ and faithf#ll+ refle!ts the #n-
derstandin of the o#ndin athers.J2 Col"rove v. Battin, 41( U.S. 149, 136
193(2 arshall, >., dissentin2 I$hen a histori!al approa!h is applied to
the iss#e at hand, it !annot e do#ted that the ramers envisioned a 8#r+ of
1* hen the+ referred to trial + 8#r+.J2 Nat+l Labor elations Bd. v. Noel
Cannin", No. 1*-1*)1, *014 $: *))*090, at T9 U.S. >#ne *6, *0142
I%here is a reat deal of histor+ to !onsider here.J2.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 43 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
44/54
(*
erhaps the plaintiffs ill a!=nolede that the histor+ !o#nts as a stri=e
aainst their proposed interpretation of the o#rteenth Amendment, #t ill
ar#e that this is o#teihed + other !onsiderations. %he prolem ith that
approa!h is that there is nothin else that !o#ld estalish a !onstit#tional
riht to same-se& marriae. %here is no te&t#al ar#ment on hi!h to rel+
the o#rteenth Amendment re#ires Id#e pro!essJ not Id#e s#stan!eJ2
and marriae las ased on rational distin!tions that appl+ e#all+ to ever+-
one do not den+ the Ie#al prote!tion of the las.J And none of the S#-
preme "o#rt de!isions plaintiffs !ite estalishes a !onstit#tional riht to
same-se& marriae. %he holdins ofLovin",La(rence, and *indsorstop ell
short of re#irin same-se& marriae in all 50 States. %he plaintiffs o#ld
li=e this "o#rt to e4tendthe holdins of those !ases, #t a !o#rt !annot e&-
tend those holdins asent a shoin that %e&asBs marriae las !onfli!t
ith the Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not presented an+ ar#ment
ased on the "onstit#tion itself. or all of their dis!#ssion of S#preme "o#rt
!ases and do!trinal 8aron, the plaintiffs !annot es!ape the fa!t that %e&asBs
marriae las' 12 do not !onfli!t ith an+ de!ision of the S#preme "o#rt
*2 do not !onfli!t ith an+ lan#ae in the "onstit#tion and (2 do not !on-
fli!t ith an+ lonstandin pra!ti!e or tradition. Cndeed, the plaintiffs do not
even ar#e that an+ s#!h !onfli!t e&ists.
Cn liht of all of this, ho !an the distri!t !o#rt !on!l#de that %e&asBs
marriae las are un-constitutionalK One possiilit+ is to rel+ on the fa!t that
past S#preme "o#rt 8#sti!es have een illin to !reate ne !onstit#tional
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 44 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
45/54
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
46/54
(4
port that ideanot e!a#se %e&asBs marriae las !onfli!t ith !onstit#-
tional te&t.
%hat approa!h to s#stantive d#e pro!ess destro+s not onl+ pop#lar sov-
ereint+ #t also the idea of a overnment of las and not of men. %he "on-
stit#tion !annot e !haned thro#h !o#rt de!isions, +et the distri!t !o#rtBs
reasonin fails to a!=nolede an!onstit#tional limits on the interpretive
poers of the 8#di!iar+. Cf that is ho o#r 8#di!ial s+stem operates, then sov-
ereint+ resides not in the people, not in the offi!ials the+ ele!t or the las
those offi!ials pass, and not even in the te&t of the "onstit#tion, #t in the
federal 8#di!iar+a 8#di!iar+ that derives its poers not from the !onsent of
the overned, #t from the 8#desB on eliefs ao#t hat moralit+ and 8#s-
ti!e re#ire.
(#
Legali/ation Of Same*Se$ %arriage
Troug 'emocratic Processes Is Far
Preferable To Legali/ation Troug !udi*cial 'ecree#
?ven memers of this "o#rt ho elieve that the 8#di!iar+ has the po(er
to re#ire the States to adopt same-se& marriae sho#ld nevertheless refrain
from doin so and allo the demo!rati! deate on same-se& marriae to !on-
tin#e in the States.
irst, same-se& marriae has not e&isted lon eno#h to enerate reliale
data reardin its effe!ts. Alloin the States to de!ide hether and for ho
lon2 to pro!eed ith same-se& marriae ill help poli!+ma=ers determine
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 46 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
47/54
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
48/54
(6
and a illinness to s#spend elief, at least provisionall+, in the !orre!tness
of oneBs on opinions.J2.
Se!ond, same-se& marriae o#ld find more p#li! a!!eptan!e and leit-
ima!+ if it ere lealiDed + demo!rati!all+ ele!ted leislat#res rather than
imposed + a 8#di!ial order. Seei!hael $. !"onnell, &he Constitution and
Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e, $all St. >. ar!h *1, *01(2, on.s8.!om1m=nE/
I"hane that !omes thro#h the politi!al pro!ess has reater demo!rati!
leitima!+.J2. As one of the leadin a!ademi! proponents of same-se& mar-
riae has e&plained'
Cn a representative demo!ra!+ s#!h as o#rs, most important po-liti!al de!isions sho#ld e made + the politi!al ran!hes, pri-maril+ "onress and se!ondaril+ the ?&e!#tive. >#di!ial reviein a demo!ra!+ is e&!eptional and sho#ld e deplo+ed + #ne-le!ted 8#des onl+ hen there is a !lear in!onsisten!+ eteen astat#te or re#lation and the "onstit#tion.
$illiam N. ?s=ride, >r. H hilip . ri!=e+, 6uasi-Constitutional La(9 Clear
State$ent ules as Constitutional La($akin", 45 ;and. :. 7ev. 59(, 6(0
199*2 footnotes omitted2.
inall+, the 8#di!ial imposition of same-se& marriae o#ld reinfor!e
per!eptions of the federal 8#di!iar+ as a politi!al instit#tion that !reates and
enfor!es !onstit#tional rihts a!!ordin to so!ietal trends. %his is a daner-
o#s path to ta=eeven for those ho elieve that same-se& marriae is ood
poli!+. Cf a riht to same-se& marriae !an e !onstit#tionaliDed + 8#di!ial
de!ree, then almost an+ poli!+ !an e!ome !onstit#tionaliDed thro#h the
!o#rts. %hat ill !a#se interest ro#ps to in!rease their demands for 8#des
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 48 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
49/54
(3
ho ill impose their preferred poli!ies from the en!h, and the alread+-
d+sf#n!tional 8#di!ial-!onfirmation pro!ess ill e!ome f#rther poisoned as
ideoloi!al !onformit+ overrides !onsiderations of leal ailit+. Cndeed, 8#-
rists ho envision a modest or restrained role for the 8#di!iar+ in resolvin
o#r nationBs disp#tess#!h as Oliver $endell
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
50/54
()
pro!essJ is severed from histor+ and traditionas in the distri!t !o#rtBs r#l-
inthen there is no a+ to !ontrol ho it ill e #sed + f#t#re !o#rts.
(I# Tis Court Sould Rule E,en If Te
Su-reme Court 0rants Certiorari In1itcen ,# .erbert#
Ct is possile that the S#preme "o#rt ill rant !ertiorari in Kitchen v.
Herbert, *014 $: *)6)044, efore this "o#rt de!ides the appeal. Cf that
happens, the State respe!tf#ll+ re#ests that this "o#rt nevertheless r#le
promptl+ on the appeal and not sta+ the pro!eedins. %he S#preme "o#rtBs
!onsideration of these iss#es ill enefit from a tho#htf#l opinion from this
"o#rt, even if this "o#rt disarees ith the StateBs ar#ments. And the dis-
tri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+ in8#n!tion aainst the StateBs marriae laseven
tho#h it has een sta+edis a !ontin#in affront to the StateBs sovereint+
and its lealit+ sho#ld e resolved as soon as possile. inall+, there is no
#arantee thatKitchenill prod#!e a r#lin on the merits, as there are 8#ris-
di!tional iss#es l#r=in in that !ase and the 8#sti!es ma+ de!ide to avoid the
merits as the+ did inHollin"s(orth v. Perr, 1(( S."t. *65*.
Ct is also !r#!ial that this "o#rt !orre!t the distri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis
anal+sis. Ct has e!ome all too !ommon for federal distri!t !o#rts to misappl+
the rational-asis standard, either + demandin that a State s#pport its las
ith eviden!e, or + re#irin a pre!ise means-end fit eteen the la and
the StateBs asserted oal. Ct o#ld e a mista=e for this "o#rt to allo the
fa#lt+ rational-asis anal+sis in the distri!t !o#rtBs opinion to standeven if
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 50 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
51/54
(9
one thin=s the S#preme "o#rt is li=el+ to resolve the same-se& marriae iss#e
+ the end of its ne&t term.
Conclusion
%he preliminar+ in8#n!tion sho#ld e va!ated, and the !ase remanded
ith instr#!tions to enter 8#dment for the defendants.
7espe!tf#ll+ s#mitted.
Gre$ %&&ottAttorne+ eneral of %e&as
Daniel "( Ho'$eirst Assistant Attorne+ eneral
s >onathan . it!hell)onathan *( MitchellSoli!itor eneral
+yle D( Hi$hfl-eth +lsmann
Michael P( MrphyAssistant Soli!itors eneral
Office of the %ttorney General.O. /o& 1*54) " 0592A#stin, %e&as 3)311-*54)51*2 9(6-1300
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 51 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
52/54
40
Certificate of Ser,ice
C !ertif+ that this do!#ment has een filed ith the !ler= of the !o#rt andserved + ?" on >#l+ *), *014, #pon'
/arr+ Alan "hasnoffaniel !Neel :ane, >r.atthe ?din eppin%kin Gmp !trass Haer . *el', L(L(P((00 "onvent Street, S#ite 1600Nations/an= laDaSan Antonio, %F 3)*05
>essi!a . $eisel%kin Gmp !trass Haer . *el', L(L(P(
*0*9 "ent#r+ ar=, ?., S#ite *400:os Aneles, "A 90063-0000
i!hael . "oole+Andre orest Neman%kin Gmp !trass Haer . *el', L(L(P(1300 a!ifi! Aven#e, S#ite 4100allas, %F 35*04
s >onathan . it!hell)onathan *( Mitchell
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 52 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
53/54
41
Certificate of Electronic Com-liance
"o#nsel also !ertifies that on >#l+ *), *014, this rief as transmitted tor. :+le $. "a+!e, "ler= of the United States "o#rt of Appeals for the ifth"ir!#it, via the !o#rtBs "?" do!#ment filin s+stem,
https'e!f.!a5.#s!o#rts.ov."o#nsel f#rther !ertifies that' 12 re#ired priva!+ reda!tions have eenmade, /th Cir(R( *5.*.1( *2 the ele!troni! s#mission is an e&a!t !op+of the paper do!#ment, /th Cir(R( *5.*.1 and (2 the do!#ment has eens!anned ith the most re!ent version of S+mante! ?ndpoint rote!tion andis free of vir#ses.
s >onathan . it!hell
)onathan *( MitchellCounsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 53 Date Filed: 07/28/2014
-
8/12/2019 14-50196 #14288
54/54
CERTIFICATE OF CO%PLIANCE
$ith %+pe-;ol#me :imitation, %+pefa!e 7e#irements,and %+pe-St+le 7e#irements
1. %his rief !omplies ith the t+pe-vol#me limitation of ed. 7. App. .(*a232/2 e!a#se'
LFM this rief !ontains 9609 ords, e&!l#din the parts of the riefe&empted + ed. 7. App. . (*a232/2iii2, or
L M this rief #ses a monospa!ed t+pefa!e and !ontains Lstate then#mer ofM lines of te&t, e&!l#din the parts of the rief e&empted + ed. 7.App. . (*a232/2iii2.
*. %his rief !omplies ith the t+pefa!e re#irements of ed. 7. App. .(*a252 and the t+pe-st+le re#irements of ed. 7. App. . (*a262 e!a#se'
LFM this rief has een prepared in a proportionall+ spa!ed t+pefa!e#sin i!rosoft $ord for a! *011, version 14.4.( in ?#it+ 14-point t+pe-fa!e, or
L M this rief has een prepared in a monospa!ed t+pefa!e #sinLstate name and version of ord pro!essin proramM ith Lstate n#mer of!hara!ters per in!h and name of t+pe st+leM.
s >onathan . it!hell)onathan *( MitchellCounsel for Defendants-Appellants
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 54 Date Filed: 07/28/2014