supreme court opinion on stay motion

7/27/2019 Supreme Court Opinion on Stay Motion

1/20

GARDEN STATE EQUALITY; DANIELWEISS and JOHN GRANT; MARSHASHAPIRO and LOUISE WALPIN;MAUREEN KILIAN and CINDYMENEGHIN; SARAH KILIANMENEGHIN, a minor, by andthrough he r guard ians ; ERICAand TEVONDA BRADSHAW;TEVERICO BARACK HAYESBRADSHAW; a minor, by andthrough h is guard ians ; MARCYEand KAREN NICHOLSON-MCFADDEN;KASEY NICHOLSON-MCFADDEN; aminor, by and through h isguard ians ; MAYA NICHOLSONMCFADDEN; a minor, by andthrough he r guard ians ; THOMASDAVIDSON and KEITH HEIMANN;MARIE HEIMANN DAVIDSON, aminor, by and through herguardians ; GRACE HEIMANNDAVIDSON, a minor, by andthrough he r guard ians ;

Pla in t i f fs -Respondents ,v.

PAULA DOW, in her o f f i c i a lcapac i ty as Attorney Generalof New Jersey ; JENNIFERVELEZ, in her o f f i c i a lcapac i ty as Commissioner ofthe New Jersey Department ofHuman Serv ices , and MARY E.O'DOWD, in her o f f i c i a lcapac i ty as Commissioner ofth e New Jersey Department ofHeal th and Senior Serv ices ,

Defendants-Movants.

1

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEYM-208 September Term 2013

073328


2/20

Decided - October 18, 2013On a motion fo r s t ay pending appeal .Jean P. Rei l ly , Deputy Attorney Genera l ,submi t ted a b r i e f on behal f of movants (JohnJ . Hoffman, Act ing Attorney General ,a t to rney ; Kevin R. Jesperson, A s s i s t a n tAtto rney General , of counsel ; Ms. Rei l ly andRober t T. Lougy, Ass i s t an t Attorney Genera l ,on th e br ie f s ) .Lawrence S. Lustberg submit ted a b r i e f onbehal f o f respondents (Gibbons and LambdaLegal , a t to rneys ; Mr. Lustberg , BenjaminYaster and Hayley J . Gorenberg, a member ofthe New York bar , on the br i e f ) .

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER de l ivered the opinion of the Cour t .In 2006, t h i s Cour t unanimously held t h a t the New Jersey

Cons t i tu t ion guaran tees same-sex couples in committedr e la t ionsh ips th e same r igh t s and benef i t s as marr ied couples ofthe oppos i t e sex . Lewis v. Harr i s , 188 N.J . 415, 423 (2006)In response, th e Legi s l a tu re passed the C i v i l Union Act andes tab l i shed ' c i v i l unions ." N.J.S.A. 37:1-28 to -36. Civ i lunions a re meant to guaran tee the r igh t s and benef i t s ofmarriage, bu t th e law does not a l low same-sex par tne r s to"marry. " N. J . S . A. 37: 1 - 2 8 f - 3 3 .

P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a l awsu i t in 2011 and a l leged t ha t c i v i l -union s t a t u s f a i l s to prov ide equal t rea tment to same-sexcouples . Pl a i n t i f f s are Garden Sta te Equal i ty , an advocacygroup, and s ix same-sex couples and t he i r ch i ld ren .

2


3/20

The Supreme Court ' s recen t ru l ing in United Sta tes v.Windsor, 570 U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 2675, 186 L. Ed. 2d 808(2013), changed th e contour of the pending l awsui t . In Windsor,the Supreme Cour t s t ruck down p a r t of the fede ra l Defense ofMarriage Act (DOMA). Id . a t , 133 S. Ct. a t 2696, 186 L. Ed.2d a t 830. The Cour t held t ha t DOMA v io l a t ed the fede ra lCons t i tu t ion by denying lawful ly marr ied same-sex couples th ebenef i t s given to marr ied couples of the opposi te sex . Ib id .

P l a i n t i f f s moved fo r summary judgment in t h i s case a f t e rthe dec i s ion in Windsor. On September 27, 2013, the HonorableMary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the Superior Court fo r theMercer Vicinage, i ssued a comprehensive, 53-page dec is ion andgran ted p l a i n t i f f s ' motion. Judge Jacobson found t h a t in thewake of Windsor, c iv i l -un ion pa r tne rs are being denied equalaccess to federa l benef i t s because of the l ab e l placed on t h e i rre l a t ionsh ip . The t r i a l court therefore held t h a t the Sta t emust extend the r i gh t to c i v i l marriage to same-sex couples . Anaccompanying o rd e r d i r ec t ed t h a t beginning on October 21, 2013,Sta te o f f i c i a l s must allow same-sex couples , who otherwisequa l i fy fo r c i v i l marr iage , to marry in New Je rsey .

The Attorney Genera l , act ing on behal f of the nameddefendants , moved fo r a s tay of the t r i a l c our t ' s order . JudgeJacobson denied th e motion, and the Sta te now appea l s . On

3


4/20

October 11, 2013, we granted the St a t e ' s motion fo r d i r e c tc e r t i f i c a t i o n and took j u r i s d i c t i on over the s tay motion.

At the hear t of th i s motion are ce r ta in core f ac t s andp r i n c i p l e s . Lewis guaranteed same-sex couples equal r igh t sunder th e Sta te Const i tu t ion . Afte r Windsor, a number offede ra l agencies extended ma r i ta l benef i t s to same-sex coupleswho a re lawful ly marr ied, but not to par tne r s in c i v i l unions .As a r e s u l t , c iv i l -un ion par tne r s in New Je rsey tOday do not

rece ive the same benef i t s as married same-sex couples when itcomes to fami ly and medical l eave , Medicare, tax and immigrat ionmat te rs , mil i t a ry and ve te rans ' a f fa i r s , and othe r a rea s . TheSta te Cons t i tu t ion ' s guarantee of equal pro tec t ion i s the re forenot being met.

To eva lua te an app l i ca t ion for a s tay , t h i s Court inessence cons iders the soundness of the t r i a l c our t ' s ru l ing andthe e f f e c t of a s tay on the pa r t i e s and th e publ ic . See Crowev . De Gioia , 90 N.J . 126 (1982). Largely fo r the reasons s t a t edin Judge Jacobson 's opinion dated October 10, 2013, we deny theSt a t e ' s motion fo r a s tay . The Sta te has advanced a number ofarguments , but none of them overcome t h i s r e a l i t y : same-sexcouples who cannot marry are not t rea ted equa l ly under the lawtoday. The harm to them i s rea l , not a b s t r a c t or specu la t ive .

Because, among other reasons , the Sta te has not shown areasonable probab i l i ty of success on the mer i t s , the t r i a l

4


5/20

c our t ' s order - - d i rec t ing S ta te of f i c i a l s to permi t same-sexcouples , who are otherwise e l ig ib l e , to en te r in to c i v i lmarriage s t a r t i ng on October 21, 2013 - - remains in e f f e c t .

I.

Appl icat ions fo r a s tay pending appeal are governed by thef ami l i a r s tandard out l ined in Crowe. See, e . g . , In re Comm'r ofIns . Deferr ing Certa in Claim Payments by N.J . I .U.A. , 256 N.J .Super. 553, 560 (App. Div. 1992) . A par ty seeking a s t ay must

demonstra te t h a t (1) r e l i e f i s needed to prevent i r r eparab leharm; (2) the app l i can t ' s cla im r e s t s on se t t l ed la w and has areasonable p r o b ab i l i t y of succeeding on the meri t s ; and (3)balancing the " re l a t i v e hardships to the pa r t i e s revea ls t h a tg re a t e r harm would occur i f a s tay i s not granted than i f itwere." McNeil v. Legis . Apportionment Comm'n, 176 N.J. 484, 486(2003) (LaVecchia, J . , dissent ing) ( c i t ing Crowe, supra , 90 N.J .a t 132-34) . The moving par ty has the burden to prove each ofthe Crowe fac to rs by c l e a r and convinc ing evidence. Brown v.Ci ty of Paterson , 424 N.J . Super. 176, 183 (App. Div. 2012)(c i t a t ion omit ted) . "In ac t ing only to preserve th e s t a t u s quo,the cour t may ' p lace les s emphasis on a pa r t i c u l a r Crowe f ac to ri f ano ther grea t ly requi res the issuance of the remedy. '" Ib id .(c i t a t ion omit ted) .

When a case presents an i s sue of "s ign i f i can t publ icimportance," a cour t must cons ider the pub l ic i n t e re s t in

5


6/20

addi t ion to the t r a d i t i ona l Crowe f ac to r s . McNeil, supra , 176N.J . a t 484.

I I .To provide the necessary backdrop fo r t h i s motion, we

br i e f ly review the p r in c ip a l case law and th e Civi l Union Act.In Lewis, supra , seven same-sex couples app l ied fo r

marriage l i censes . 188 N.J . a t 423-24. Dif fe ren tmunic ipa l i t i e s denied th e reques ts because Sta te law conf ined

marriage to oppos i t e -sex couples . Id . a t 424. The couples suedSta te o f f i c i a l s and chal lenged the c ons t i t u t i ona l i t y of theS t a t e ' s marriage laws. Ib id . The couples argued t ha t th e lawsv io la ted the equal pro tec t ion guarantee of A r t i c l e I , Paragraph1 of the New Je r sey Cons t i tu t ion , id . a t 427, which dec la rest ha t a l l persons possess "unal ienable r igh t s " to enjoy l i f e ,l i be r ty , and proper ty , and to pursue happiness .

After reviewing var ious r igh t s af fo rded to married but notsame-sex couples , id . a t 448-49, the Cour t concluded t h a t theS t a t e ' s domest ic pa r tne rsh ip laws " fa i l ed to br idge theinequa l i ty gap," id . a t 448. Because the Cour t could not "f inda l eg i t ima te publ ic need fo r an unequal l eg a l scheme of benef i t sand pr iv i l eges t h a t disadvantage[d] committed same-sex couples ,"id . a t 453, the Court held t h a t the d i sp a r i t y v io la ted theCons t i tu t ion ' s guarantee of equa l protec t ion , id . a t 423. TheCourt t he re fo re d i rec ted th e Sta te to "provide to committed

6


7/20

same-sex couples , on equa l terms, the f u l l r igh t s and benef i tsenjoyed by hete rosexua l married couples ." Id . a t 463 (emphasesadded) .

To comply with t h a t holding, the Court deferred to theLegi s l a tu re to make th e fo l lowing choice: e i t h e r gran t same-sexcouples th e r i g h t to en te r in to a c i v i l marriage, o r "enact apa ra l l e l s t a tu to ry s t ruc tu re" under a d i f f e r e n t name "so long asthe r i gh t s and b en e f i t s of c i v i l marriage are made equa l lyava i lab le to same-sex couples ." Id . a t 423, 463.

The Legi s l a tu re chose the second opt ion. It enacted theCiv i l Union Act, which es tabl ished c i v i l unions in February2007. See N.J .S.A. 37:1-28 to -36. The a c t provides tha t c i v i lunions are to be t r e a t e d the same as marr iages. N.J .S.A. 37:1-28, -33. The s t a tu t e , though, does not allow same-sex couplesto marry and does not extend the title "marriage" to c i v i lunions.

Four months ago, th e Supreme Court decided Windsor. Thecase involved two women, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who begana long-term re l a t ionsh ip in 1963 and l a t e r marr ied in Canada.Windsor, supra , 570 U.S. a t 133 S. Ct. a t 2683, 18 6 L. Ed .2d a t 816. The Sta te of New York recognized t he i r marriage.Ib id .

When Spyer died in 2009, she l e f t her e n t i r e e s t a t e toWindsor. Ib id . The Defense of Marriage Act, however, barred

7


8/20

Windsor from c la iming th e f ed e ra l e s t a t e tax exemption av a i l ab l eto surv iv ing spouses . Ib id . 1 As a r e s u l t , Windsor had to pay$363,053 in e s t a t e t axes . Ib i d . A f t e r th e In t e rn a l RevenueServ ice denied h e r r eq u es t fo r a refund, Windsor f i l e d s u i t andasse r t ed t h a t DOMA was uncons t i t u t iona l . Ib id .

The Cour t observed t h a t " [ t ]he avowed purpose and p r a c t i c a le f f e c t of the law . a re to impose a di sadvan tage , a separa tes t a t u s , and so a s t igma upon a l l who en t e r in to same-sexmarr iages made l awfu l by the unquest ioned au thor i ty of th eS ta t e s . " Id . a t , 133 S. Ct. a t 2693, 186 L. Ed. 2d a t 827.The Supreme Court held t h a t DOMA vio la t ed b as i c due process andequa l p r o t ec t io n p r in c ip l e s under the F i f t h Amendment to theUni ted Sta t e s Cons t i tu t ion . Id . a t , 133 S. c t . a t2693, 2695, 186 L. Ed. 2d a t 827, 830. By s t r i k i n g down th ep a r t of DOMA in ques t ion , th e Court d id n ot al low f ed e ra l lawsand regu la t ions to cont inue to deny l awfu l ly marr ied same-sexcouples th e b en e f i t s provided to marr ied oppos i t e -sex couples .

1 Sect ion 3 of DOMA def ined "marr iage" and "spouse": "Indetermining th e meaning of any Act o f Congress , or of anyru l ing , r egu la t ion , or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th e var iousadmin i s t ra t ive bureaus and agencies of th e Uni ted Sta t e s , th eword 'mar r i age ' means only a l ega l union between one man and onewoman as husband and wife, and the word ' spouse ' r e f e r s only toa person of th e oppos i te sex who i s a husband o r a w ife . " 1U.S.C.A. 7. DOMA ap p l i ed to more than "1,000 f ed e ra l s t a tu t e sand th e whole rea lm of f ed e ra l regu la t ions . " Windsor, 57 0 U.S.a t , 1 3 3 S. C t. a t 2690, 186 L. Ed. 2d a t 824. Those lawsand regu la t ions "per ta in [ ] to Socia l Secu r i t y , hous ing,c r imin a l s an c t i o n s , copyright , and ve te rans ' b en e f i t s . "

, 13 3 S. C t. a t 2694, 18 6 L. Ed. 2d a t 828.8

t axes ,Id . a t


9/20

The Court a lso s t a t ed tha t i t s "opinion and i t s holding areconfined to . . l awfu l marriages ." Id . a t , 133 S. Ct. a t2696, 186 L. Ed. 2d a t 830.

Afte r Windsor, p la in t i f f s in t h i s case moved fo r summaryjudgment, and the t r i a l cour t g ran ted the motion. JudgeJacobson reasoned t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were not e l ig ib l e fo r mar i ta lbenef i t s tha t a number of federa l agencies had extended to samesex married couples in l i gh t of Windsor. She observed t ha t "New

Je r sey same-sex couples in c i v i l unions" were "now deniedbenef i t s so le ly as a r e s u l t of th e l ab e l placed upon them by th eS ta t e . " In her judgment, the harm to same-sex couples in a"wide range of con tex ts" v io la ted Lewis and the Sta t eCons t i tu t ion ' s guarantee of equal pro tec t ion . That "unequalt r e a tment , " she ru led , "require[d] t h a t New Je rsey extend c i v i lmarriage to same-sex couples ."

I I I .We turn now to the mer i t s of the S t a t e ' s motion fo r a s t ay

and cons ider each of th e re l evan t f ac to r s .A.

The Sta te argues t h a t it w i l l su f f e r i r r eparab le harm in anumber of ways i f Judge Jacobson 's order i s not s tayed. Fi r s t ,it c la ims "an in ju ry to i t s sovereign i n t e r e s t s whenever one ofi t s democra t i ca l ly enac ted laws i s dec la red uncons t i tu t iona l . "The a bs t r a c t harm the Sta t e a l leges begs th e ul t imate quest ion:

9


10/20

i f a law i s uncons t i tu t iona l , how i s the s t a t e harmed by notbe ing ab le to enforce i t ? See Joe lner v. v i I I . of Wash. Park,378 ~ 3 d 613, 620 (7th Cir . 2004) ("[T]here can be noi r r eparab le harm to a munic ipa l i ty when it i s preven ted fromenforc ing an uncons t i t u t iona l s t a tu t e [ . ] " ) ( c i t ing Connect ionDis t r ib . Co. v . Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir . 1998)) .

The Sta t e re l i e s on othe r fede ra l cases fo r the broadpropos i t i on it advances . See Maryland v. King, u.S.

, 13 3 S. C t. 1, 3, 183 L. Ed. 2d 667, 670 (2012) (Roberts,C.J . , in chambers) ("[A]ny t ime a Sta t e i s en jo ined by a cour tfrom e f f ec tu a t i n g s t a tu t e s enacted by rep re sen ta t ive s of i t speople , it su f fe r s a form of i r r eparab le i n ju ry . " ) (quoting NewMotor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v . Orr in W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345,1351, 98 s. C t. 359, 363, 54 L. Ed. 2d 439, 445 (1977)(Rehnquis t , J . , in chambers)) . But the Sta te c i t e s no NewJersey case law fo r the p r in c ip l e t h a t enjoining a s t a t u t e ' senforcement always amounts to i r r eparab le harm. In any event ,the trial co u r t did not s t r i ke down the Civ i l Union Act ; itins tead d i rec ted the Sta te to al low same-sex couples to en te rin to c i v i l marriage.

Second, the Sta t e contends t h a t "once it gran t s marr iagel i c enses to even a handful of same-sex couples , it i s v i r t u a l l yimposs ib le . to undo t ha t ac t ion l a t e r " ; the harm would be" i r remediab le . " The Sta te does n ot exp la in why t h a t i s so. As

10


11/20

Judge Jacobson noted , Cal i fo rn ia ' s exper ience revea l s theoppos i t e . See Lockyer v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco , 95

~ 3 d 459, 464, 49 4 (Cal . 2004) (decis ion by Cal i fo rn ia SupremeCour t order ing San Francisco county c le rk to s top i s su ingmarriage l i censes to same-sex couples and to take spec i f i c s tepsto nu l l i f y 4,000 l i censes t ha t had a l ready been i ssued) .2

The Sta te has presented no explanat ion fo r how it i st angibly or ac tua l ly harmed by al lowing same-sex couples to

marry. It has not made a fo rce fu l showing of i r r eparab le harm.B.

Next, to ob ta in a s t ay , the Sta te must demonstrate t h a t i t sunder ly ing l eg a l claim i s s e t t l e d , and it must show a reasonableprobab i l i ty of success on the mer i t s . See Crowe, supra , 90 N.J.a t 133. The Sta te has no t made e i the r showing.

The Sta te f l i p s around the Crowe s tandard and argues t ha tp l a i n t i f f s ' i n t e rp r e t a t i on of Windsor and i t s chal lenge to theCiv i l Union Act pre sen t unse t t l ed quest ions of cons t i tu t iona llaw. As Judge Jacobson cor rec t ly observed, the Crowe s tandardrequi res the moving par ty - - in th i s case, the Sta te - - to show" th a t i t s l eg a l r i gh t i s s e t t l e d . " See i b id . Regardless , theSta te mainta ins t ha t the premise under lying Windsor means t ha t

2 Addi t iona l h i s to ry of what occurred in Ca l i fo rn ia a f t e r 2004can be found in Holl ingsworth v . Perry , __ U.S. __ , 133 S. Ct.2652, 186 L. Ed. 2d 768 (2013), and the lower cour t dec i s ions inthe case .

11


12/20

c iv i l -un ion pa r tne rs are en t i t l ed to fede ra l b en e f i t s . Thati n t e rp r e t a t i on of Windsor has no t been fol lowed by the UnitedSta tes Department of Jus t i ce o r any number of fede ra l agencies .The Supreme Cour t in Windsor, supra , dec la red t h a t i t s "opinionand i t s holding are confined to . . lawful [same-sex]marr iages . " 57 0 U.S. a t , 133 S. Ct. a t 2696, 186 L. Ed. 2da t 830 (emphases added). In th e wake of t h a t decis ion, fede ra lagencies have d i rec ted tha t var ious benef i t s be made ava i lab le

to same-sex married couples , but not to c iv i l -un ion par tne r s .That , in tu rn , depr ives pa r tne rs in a c i v i l union of the r igh t sand benef i t s they would rece ive as marr ied couples . The S t a t e ' sthought fu l pos i t ion about what fede ra l law should provide cannots ubs t i t u t e for federa l ac t ion; nor can the S t a t e ' s views bindthe f edera l government.

To assess the St a t e ' s chance to succeed on the meri t s andover turn the t r i a l cour t ' s judgment, we r e tu rn to the corep r i n c i p l e s t h a t frame th i s case. In Lewis, supra , th i s Cour theld t h a t to comply with the equal pro tec t ion guarantee ofArt i c l e I , Paragraph 1 of the New Je rsey Const i tu t ion , "theSta te must provide to committed same-sex couples , on equalterms, th e f u l l r i g h t s and benef i t s enjoyed by heterosexualmarr ied couples ." 188 N.J. a t 463. The Legi s l a tu re , in turn ,enacted the Civ i l Union Act, which a l lows same-sex couples toen t e r i n to a c i v i l union. See N.J .S.A. 37:1-28 to -36. The law

12


13/20

does not permit them to marry. Windsor then changed thelandscape. By s t r ik ing the p a r t of DOMA tha t def ined marriageas "a l eg a l union between one man and one woman," 1 U.S.C.A. 7, the United Sta t e s Supreme Court paved the way to extendingfede ra l benef i t s to marr ied same-sex couples . Windsor, supra ,570 U.S. a t , 133 S. Ct. a t 2696, 186 L. Ed. 2d a t 830. Anumber of federa l agencies responded and now provide variousb en e f i t s to married same-sex couples . Because Sta t e law offe rs

same-sex couples c i v i l unions but not the opt ion of marr iage,same-sex couples in New Je rsey a re now being deprived of thef u l l r i gh t s and benef i t s the Sta te Const i tu t ion guarantees .

The Sta te presents three arguments to show t ha t i t s appealhas a reasonable p r o b ab i l i t y of success . Fi r s t , the Sta teclaims t ha t p l a i n t i f f s "wi l l no t be able to overcome the highes tpresumpt ion of cons t i tu t iona l va l id i t y t ha t a t taches tos t a t u t o ry enactments ." Once again, Judge Jacobson did no ts t r i ke down a s t a tu t e . The Civ i l Union Act, while it may notsee much use in the coming months, remains ava i lab le fo r peoplewho choose to use it. Even more important , though, the s t a tu t ewas presumptively va l id "so long as" it provided f u l l and equalr igh t s and benef i t s to same-sex couples . Lewis, supra , 188 N.J .a t 423. Based on recent events , the Civ i l Union Act no longerachieves t h a t purpose .

13


14/20

Second, the Sta te argues t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' "c la ims f a i l onfedera l i sm grounds." Underlying p a r t of t h i s argument i s theS t a t e ' s i n t e rp re t a t i o n of Windsor, which, as noted above, i s a todds with the prac t i ce of the federa l government. Although theSta te c la ims t h a t the federa l government must "defer to thes t a t e s in mat te rs concerning domest ic r e l a t i o n s , " federa l agencyru l ings are fo l lowing New Je r se y ' s ru l e about who may marry.

Third , the Sta te c la ims t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' equal pro tec t ion

claim must f a i l because " the St a t e ' s ac t ion i s not l ega l lycognizable ." The Sta te argues t h a t it has fo l lowed Lewis andprovided "same-sex couples with a l l Sta te marriage b en e f i t s , "and t h a t it cannot be respons ib le fo r " fede ra l bureaucra t s t h a t

. re fused to ex tend federa l benef i t s . "Lewis i s no t l imi ted in t h a t way. The dec is ion recognized

t h a t it could no t a l t e r fede ra l law, Lewis, supra , 188 N.J . a t459 n.25 , y et a t the same t ime di rec t ed the S ta t e to providesame-sex couples "the f u l l r igh t s and benef i t s enjoyed byheterosexual marr ied couples ," id . a t 463 (emphasis added)Lewis l e f t it to the Legis la ture to revise S ta t e law in a wayt h a t s a t i s f i e d the C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s guarantee of equal pro tec t ion .rd . a t 457-62. And th e Sta te ac ted in response. I t enac ted theC i v i l Union Act and crea ted a s t r u c tu r e t h a t al lows same-sexcouples to en t e r in to a c i v i l union but no t to marry. SeeN.J .S.A. 37:1-28 to -36. That s t ruc tu re today provides the

14


15/20

framework for dec is ions by federa l a u t h o r i t i e s . The Sta t e ' ss t a tu to ry scheme e f f e c t i v e l y denies committed same-sex par tnersin New Je rsey the a b i l i t y to receive fede ra l benef i t s nowafforded to marr ied par tne r s . The t r i a l cour t thereforecor rec t ly found cognizable ac t ion by the S ta t e .

We conclude t h a t the Sta te has not shown a reasonablep r o b ab i l i t y o r l ike l ihood of success on the meri t s .

C.

Crowe, supra , also requi res t h a t we balance the re la t ivehardships to the pa r t i e s . 90 N.J. a t 134. The Sta te i den t i f i edce r t a in abs t rac t harms t h a t are addressed above. Weighedaga ins t them are immediate and concrete v io l a t i o n s ofp l a i n t i f f s ' r i g h t to equal pro tec t ion under the law. Becausep l a i n t i f f s cannot marry under Sta t e law, they and t h e i r chi ldrenare simply not e l ig ib l e fo r a hos t of fede ra l b en e f i t s ava i lableto same-sex marr ied couples today.

For example, par tne r s in a c i v i l union cannot rece ive anumber of hea l th re l a t ed benef i t s ; they cannot cla im leaveunder the Family and Medical Leave Act i f a par tne r becomes s icko r i s in jured;3 they cannot get coverage fo r hea l th benef i t s as a

3 Fact Sheet #28F; Qualifying Reasons fo r Leave Under theFamily and Medical Leave Act, U.S. Dep ' t of Labor, Wage and HourDiv. , h t tp ; / /www.dol .gov/whd/regs /compliance/whdfs28f .pdf ( l a s tv i s i t e d Oct . 17, 2013) .

15


16/20

"spouse" of a f ede ra l employee;4 and they cannot get ce r t a inMedicare b en e f i t s , inc lud ing se rv ices in a sk i l l e d nurs ingf a c i l i t y fo r a spouse. s

Unlike same-sex marr ied couples , c iv i l -un ion pa r tne rs a l socannot f i l e a j o i n t federa l tax re turn;6 they cannot beconsidered a "spouse" fo r immigrat ion purposes; 7 and they cannotpa r t i c ipa t e in a Surv ivor Benef i t Plan as a spouse of an ac t iveor r e t i r ed member of the mil i ta ry .8 A ll of these and o the r

examples a f f e c t not only pa r tne rs to a c i v i l union but a l sot h e i r ch i ld ren .4 Le t t e r from John O'Brien, Dir . of Heal thcare and In s . , U.S.Off ice of Personnel Mgmt., Fed. Emp. Ins . Operat ions , to A llCar r ie r s (July 3, 2013), ava i lab le a t ht tp: / /www.opm.gov/hea l thca re- insurance /hea lthca re /ca r r i e rs /2013 /2013-20 .pdf .S Press Release , U.S. Dep' t of Heal th & Human Servs . , HHSAnnounces F i r s t Guidance Implementing Supreme Cour t ' s Decis ionon th e Defense of Marriage Act (Aug. 29, 2013), ava i l ab le a tht tp :/ /www.hhs .gov/news/press /2013pres/08 /20130829a .h tml ;Memorandum from Danie l le R. Moon, D ir . , Medicare Drug & Heal thPlan Cont rac t Admin. Grp. , to A ll Medicare Advantage Orgs. (Aug.29, 2013), ava i lab le a t ht tp : / /h r . cch . com/h ld /SNF-Bene f i t s after-USvWindsorDOMA-decison8-29-13.pdf.6 I n t e r n a l Revenue Service, Rev. Rul. 2013-17, a t 12,h t tp : / /www. i r s .gov /pub / i r s -d rop / r r -13-17 .pdf ( l a s t v i s i t e d Oct.17, 20l3) .7 U.S. Visas fo r Same-Sex Spouses, Trave l .S ta te .Gov, U.S. Dep' to f S ta t e , h t t p : // t r a v e l .s t a t e .g o v / v i s a / f rv i /f rv i _ 6 0 3 6 . h t m l #( l a s t v i s i t e d Oct. 17, 2013).8 Press Release , Chief of Naval Personnel Publ ic Affa i r s , U.S.Dep ' t of the Navy, Same-Sex Spouses of Mil i t a ry Ret i rees NowE l ig ib l e fo r Surv ivor Benef i t s Program (Sept. 9, 2013, 3:22 PM),av a i l ab l e a tht tp :/ /www .navy .mi l /submi t /d i sp lay .asp7s to ry_ id=76431 .

16


17/20

Lewis guarantees equal t rea tment under the law to same-sexcouples . That cons t i tu t iona l guarantee i s not being met. Andth e ongoing in jury t h a t p la in t i f f s face today cannot be repa i redwith an award of money damages a t a l a t e r t ime. See Crowe,supra , 90 N.J. a t 132-33 ("Harm i s genera l ly consideredi r repa rab le in equi ty i f it cannot be redressed adequate ly bymonetary damages."); see a lso Lafores t v. Former Clean A irHolding Co. , 376 ~ 3 d 48, 55 (2d Cir . 2003) . Pl a i n t i f f s

h ig h l ig h t a s ta rk example to demonst ra te th e poin t : i f a c i v i l -union p a r tn e r passes away while a s tay i s in place , h is or h ersu rv iv ing pa r tne r and any chi ldren w i l l fo rever be deniedfede ra l mar i t a l pro tec t ions .

The balance of hardships does not support the motion fo r as tay .

D.

Fina l ly , because t h i s case pre sen t s an i ssue of s i g n i f i c a n tpubl ic importance, we consider the pub l ic i n t e re s t . MCNeil,supra , 176 N.J. a t 484. What i s th e pub l i c ' s i n t e re s t in a casel i ke th i s? Like Judge Jacobson, we can f ind no publ ic i n t e re s tin depr iv ing a group of New Je rsey r es iden ts of t h e i rcons t i tu t iona l r igh t to equal pro tec t ion while the appealsprocess unfolds .

The Sta t e c i t e s var ious cases in which cour ts have gran teda s tay . See, e . g . , Comm. to Recal l Robert Menendez from the

17


18/20

Off ice of u.s. Senato r v . Wells , 413 N.J. Super . 435, 458 (App.Div. 2010) (s taying orde r t h a t r e c a l l process beg in) , rev 'd onothe r grounds , 204 N.J . 79 (2010) ( f ind ing Sta te r e c a l l processo f United Sta t e s Senato r uncons t i tu t iona l ) ; Penpac, Inc . v.Morr is Cnty. Mun. U t i l s . Auth. , 299 N.J. Super . 288, 293 (App.Div. 1997) (s taying orde r t h a t voided government con t rac t fo rv io la t ion of publ ic bidd ing requ i rements ) , c e r t i f . denied , 150N.J . 28 (1997); Palamar Cons t r . , Inc . v . Pennsauken, 196 N.J .

Super . 241, 245 (App. Div. 1983) (same). Those ru l ings servedthe pub l ic i n t e r e s t in l i g h t of the pa r t i c u l a r circumstancespresen ted .

In othe r s i t u a t i o n s , cour t s have dec l ined t o en t e r a s tayin order to p r o t ec t i nd iv idua l co n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . See,e . g . , Armstrong v. O'Connel l , 416 F. Supp. 1325, 1332 (E.D. wis .1976) (denying s tay of order t h a t en jo ined defendants fromdisc r imina t ing on bas i s of race in opera t ion of publ ic schoo ls ) ;For tune v . Molpus, 43 1 ~ 2 d 799, 804 (5th Cir . 1970) (vacat ings ing le - judge s tay of D i s t r i c t Cour t ' s orde r d i rec t ing un iver s i tyo f f i c i a l s to permi t c i v i l r igh t s a c t i v i s t to speak on campus) .We f ind t h a t th e compell ing publ ic i n t e r e s t in t h i s case i s toavoid v io l a t i o n s of th e co n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantee of equalt rea tment fo r same-sex couples .

The Sta te argues t ha t we should give the democra t ic process"a chance to p lay out" r a t h e r than ac t now. When cour ts face

18


19/20

ques t ions t h a t have fa r - reach ing soc ia l i mp l i ca t i o n s , see Lewis,supra , 188 N.J . a t 461, there i s a b e n e f i t to l e t t i n g thep o l i t i c a l process and p u b l i c d i s cu s s io n proceed f i r s t . Courtsshould a l so "avoid reaching co n s t i t u t i o n a l ques t ions un lessrequ i red to do so . " Comm. to Reca l l Menendez, supra , 204 N.J.a t 95-96 ( c i t ing H arr i s v . McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 306-07, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 2683, 65 L. Ed. 2d 784, 798 (1980); Randolph Town Ctr .v. Cnty. of Morr is , 186 N.J . 78, 80 (2006) ) . But when a pa r ty

p res en t s a c l e a r case of ongoing unequal t r ea tmen t , and asks theco u r t t o v ind ica t e co n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p ro t ec t ed r i g h t s , a co u r tmay no t s ide s t ep its o b l i g a t i o n to ru l e fo r an i n d e f in i t e amountof t ime . Under those ci rcumstances, cour t s do not have theopt ion to d e fe r .

IV.We have b efo re us today a motion fo r a s t ay . To ru le on

th e s tay motion , we ap p l i ed se t t l e d l e g a l s t an d a rd s andde te rmined t h a t th e St a t e has not shown a reasonab le p ro b a b i l i t yit w i l l succeed on the meri t s . Addi t iona l arguments on themer i t s w i l l be cons idered in January 2014.

We conclude t h a t the St a t e has not made th e necessa ryshowing to p r ev a i l on any of the Crowe f ac to r s and t h a t th ep u b l i c i n t e r e s t does no t favor a s tay . We t he re fo re deny theS t a t e ' s motion fo r a s t ay . As a r e su l t , th e trial c o u r t ' s o rd e rda ted September 27, 2013 remains in f u l l fo rce and e f f e c t .

19


20/20

Sta te o f f i c i a l s sh a l l t he re fo re permi t same-sex couples , who areotherwise e l i g i b l e , t o en te r in to c i v i l marr iage beginning onOctober 21, 2013.

JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, HOENS and PATTERSON and JUDGESRODRIGUEZ and CUFF (both t emporar i ly ass igned) , jo in in CHIEFJUSTICE RABNER's opin ion .

20

supreme court opinion on stay motion

Documents