De Leon v. Perry

De Leon v. Perry is a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The state defendants filed an interlocutory appeal, as the disposition on the motion was not a final ruling in the case. The case is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the plaintiffs' motion for an expedited hearing was denied on May 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited hearing and it was granted on October 7, 2014 after the Supreme Court of the United States denied appeals on other marriage equality cases on October 6, 2014.

The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on January 9, 2015.

Background

Article I, Section 32 of the Constitution of Texas, added via referendum as Proposition 2 on November 8, 2005, specifically banned same-sex marriage by definition: "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman."

Plaintiffs in the case are an unmarried gay couple who wish to marry in-state, and a lesbian couple lawfully married in Massachusetts wanting in-state recognition of that marriage. The lead named plaintiff, Cleopatra De Leon, is a U.S. Air Force and Texas Air National Guard veteran, and in a committed relationship with her wife for 12 years at the time of the filing of the suit. On the other end, the lead named defendant is Rick Perry, sued in his official capacity as the Governor of Texas.

U.S. district court action

On October 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed suit in U.S. district court, challenging the Texas' same-sex marriage ban. The case was assigned to Federal District Judge Orlando Garcia.^[1]

The district judge heard oral arguments on February 12, 2014, forecasting that the issue of same-sex marriage "will make its way to the Supreme Court".^[2] Arguing for the state, Assistant Texas Solicitor General Mike Murphy said: "The purpose of Texas marriage law is not to discriminate against same-sex couples but to promote responsible procreation" and that a heterosexual couple provides the best environment for childrearing.^[3]

On February 26, Garcia ruled against Texas' ban on same-sex marriage, writing that "Texas' current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason".^[4] Garcia agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that homosexuals are a suspect class entitled to a more exacting standard of review, heightened scrutiny, but found that the state's arguments fail "even under the most deferential rational basis level of review" regarding equal protection. Regarding due process and the denial of a fundamental right, he wrote that the state's ban must be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard. He ruled that the state has "failed to identify any rational, much less a compelling, reason that is served by denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry".^[5] He stayed enforcement of his ruling pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.^[6][7]

U.S. Court of Appeals action

Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would appeal the decision. Governor Rick Perry said: "The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box. We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state."^[8] On November 24, the plaintiffs asked the district court to lift its stay, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied stays in similar cases and dissolved stays by denying cert in several more.^[9] The district court denied that request on December 12.^[10] The Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on January 9, 2015, before Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham, Jerry E. Smith, and James E. Graves, Jr.^[11]

On February 12, the plaintiffs asked the Fifth Circuit to lift the stay, citing the refusal of the U.S. Supreme to extend stays in similar Alabama and Florida cases, or at the least lift the stay with respect to plaintiffs De Leon and Dimetman, who expect the birth of their child on March 15 and seek to avoid the adoption process.^[12]

References