Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Document: 00512830785
Page: 1
No. 14-31037
Plaintiffs Appellants
v.
DEVIN GEORGE, in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center
Director at Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals; TIM
BARFIELD, in his official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue;
KATHY KLIEBERT, in her official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of
Health and Hospitals, Defendants Appellees
FORUM FOR EQUALITY LOUISIANA, INCORPORATED; JACQUELINE M.
BRETTNER; M. LAUREN BRETTNER; NICHOLAS J. VAN SICKELS; ANDREW S.
BOND; HENRY LAMBERT; R. CAREY BOND; L. HAVARD SCOTT, III; and
SERGIO MARCH PRIETO, Plaintiffs Appellants
v.
TIM BARFIELD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Revenue; DEVIN GEORGE, in his official capacity as
Louisiana State Registrar, Defendants Appellees
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, Case Nos. 2:13-cv-5090, 2:14-cv-97, 2:14-cv-327
The Honorable Martin Leach-Cross Feldman, District Judge
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
PAUL D. CASTILLO
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
3500 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75219
T: 214-219-8585, F: 214-219-4455
kupton@lambdalegal.org
pcastillo@lambdalegal.org
SUSAN L. SOMMER
KAREN L. LOEWY
OMAR GONZALEZ-PAGAN
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
120 Wall Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10005
T: 212-809-8585, F: 212-809-0055
ssommer@lambdalegal.org
kloewy@lambdalegal.org
ogonzalez-pagan@lambdalegal.org
CAMILLA B. TAYLOR
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
105 West Adams, Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60603
T: 312-663-4413, F: 312-663-4307
ctaylor@lambdalegal.org
Page: 2
J. DALTON COURSON
LESLI D. HARRIS
STONE PIGMAN WALTHER
WITTMANN, L.L.C.
546 Carondelet Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
T: 504-581-3200, F: 504-581-3361
dcourson@stonepigman.com
lharris@stonepigman.com
richard@perquelaw.com
scott@spiveyesq.com
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................. iii
ARGUMENT IN REPLY ......................................................... 1
I.
II.
III.
B.
C.
Case: 14-31037
IV.
Document: 00512830785
Page: 4
1.
2.
B.
CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 43
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................. 45
ECF FILING STANDARD
CERTIFICATION ................................................................. 46
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...................................... 47
ii
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adar v. Smith,
639 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2011) ............................................. 36
Baker v. Nelson,
409 U.S. 810 (1972) ............................................................. 9
Baskin v. Bogan,
Bostic v. Schaefer,
Bowen v. Gilliard,
483 U.S. 587 (1987) ........................................................... 21
Califano v. Webster,
430 U.S. 313 (1977) ........................................................... 31
iii
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 6
Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150487
(D. P.R. Oct. 21, 2014) .................................................... 2, 9
De Leon v. Perry,
975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014) .............................. 39
DeBoer v. Snyder,
No. 14-1341, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS
21191 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014).................................... passim
Eisenstadt v. Baird,
405 U.S. 438 (1972) ..................................................... 35, 39
Frontiero v. Richardson,
411 U.S. 677 (1973) ........................................................... 27
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) ....................................................... 18
Johnson v. Johnson,
385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) ....................................... 19, 20
Kitchen v. Herbert,
755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, No. 14-124, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 6637 (Oct. 6, 2014) ...................................... 7, 15, 43
iv
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 7
Latta v. Otter,
No. 14-35420, 2014 U.S. App.
LEXIS 19620 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014) ........................ passim
Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003) ..................................................... 10, 26
Mitchum v. Foster,
407 U.S. 225 (1972) ............................................................. 5
Nyquist v. Mauclet,
432 U.S. 1 (1977)............................................................... 25
Otter v. Latta,
No. 14A374, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6735 (Oct. 10, 2014) .......... 2
Parnell v. Hamby,
No. 14A413, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 7011 (Oct. 17, 2014) .......... 2
Perry v. Schwarzenegger,
704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................... 23, 24, 25
v
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 8
Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620 (1996) ................................................... passim
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 (1987) ............................................................. 13
Varnum v. Brien,
763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)....................................... 24, 28
vi
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 9
Whitewood v. Wolf,
992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014) .................... 24, 26, 27
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 10
viii
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 11
ARGUMENT IN REPLY
More than two dozen federal circuit and district courts
around the country have struck down as unconstitutional
prohibitions on marriage for same-sex couples. As of this
filing, 32 states and the District of Columbia recognize the
constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry.1 This
follows the decision by the United States Supreme Court to
deny certiorari review of the decisions of the Fourth,
Seventh, and Tenth Circuits to invalidate the marriage bans
of Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah,2 as
Those states include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
1
See Rainey v. Bostic, No. 14-153, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6053 (Oct.
2014); Schaefer v. Bostic, No. 14-225, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6405 (Oct.
2014); McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14-251, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6316 (Oct.
2014); Bogan v. Baskin, No. 14-277, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 5797 (Oct.
2014); Walker v. Wolf, No. 14-278, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6655 (Oct.
2014); Smith v. Bishop, No. 14-136, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6054 (Oct.
2014); Herbert v. Kitchen, No. 14-124, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6637 (Oct.
2
2014).
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 12
See Otter v. Latta, No. 14A374, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 6735 (Oct. 10,
2014); Parnell v. Hamby, No. 14A413, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 7011 (Oct. 17,
3
2014)
Out of dozens of federal court decisions, the lower court is joined
by rulings from only two courtsthe Sixth Circuit and District of
Puerto Rico. See DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS
21191, slip op. (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014); Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla,
No. 14-cv-1253, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150487 (D. P.R. Oct. 21, 2014).
4
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 13
Case: 14-31037
equal
Document: 00512830785
protection
framework
Page: 14
applicable
to
Louisianas
I.
its
role
as
adjudicator
of
Plaintiffs
federal
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 15
(1972).
Thus,
[m]inorities
trampled on
by the
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 16
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 17
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 379 (4th Cir. 2014). This is
because the power the Constitution grants it also restrains.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 18
Schuettes reasoning.5
Schuette
constitutional
found
that
amendment
voter-approved
prohibiting
state
Michigan public
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 19
and
equality
guarantees
of
the
Fourteenth
by
imagining
what
the
adopters
of
the
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 20
has
rejected
such
cramped
view
of
10
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 21
11
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 22
12
Case: 14-31037
II.
Document: 00512830785
Page: 23
whether
to
recognize
new,
narrow
13
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 24
of
same-sex
relationships
enjoy
the
same
Defendants
argument
that
because
14
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 25
the right to do so. One might just as easily have argued that
interracial couples are by definition excluded from the
institution of marriage. Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1216.
Defendants
take
particular
exception
to
the
15
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 26
16
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 27
11
17
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 28
18
Case: 14-31037
A.
Document: 00512830785
Page: 29
19
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 30
20
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 31
The
hallmarks
of
classification
considerations
are
most
21
important.
See
id.
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 32
22
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 33
as
numerous
courts
have
23
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 34
2009).14
Second, it is axiomatic that sexual orientation has no
relevance to a persons capabilities as a citizen. Whitewood
v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410, 428 (M.D. Pa. 2014). See also
Windsor, 699 F.3d at 181-85; Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875
F.2d 699, 725 (9th Cir. 1989); Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers.
50196 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2014), at 14-15; Amicus Curiae Br. of the
American Sociological Association in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees,
De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2014), at 5-12.
24
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 35
class
to
groups
with
ostensibly
mutable
Baskin, 766 F.3d at 657; see also Windsor, 699 F.3d at 184;
Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 966; Golinski, 824 F. Supp. 2d at
986.17
Indeed, even though [a]lienage and illegitimacy are actually
subject to change, the Supreme Court has applied heightened scrutiny
to classifications based on those characteristics. Windsor, 699 F.3d at
183 n.4; see Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 9 n.11 (1977) (rejecting the
argument that alienage did not deserve strict scrutiny because it was
mutable).
16
17
continued
25
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 36
to
adequately
protect
themselves
from
the
continuation
al., in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 1431037 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2014); Amicus Br. of GLMA: Health
Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality in Support of PlaintiffsAppellees, De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-50196 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2014).
For example, even though a decade has elapsed since Lawrence v.
Texas, which declared state anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, 539
U.S. 558, 574 (2003), Louisiana's anti-sodomy statute remains on its
books. See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 14:89 (2013). As recently as 2013 gay
men in Louisiana were arrested for consensual adult intimacy under
the law. See Campbell Robertson, After Arrests on Charges of Sodomy,
18
continued
26
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 37
27
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 38
28
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 39
29
Case: 14-31037
2.
Document: 00512830785
Page: 40
concern
of
constitutional
sex-discrimination
30
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 41
with
regard
to
the
romantic
preferences,
IV.
31
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 42
32
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 43
Louisianas
sanction,
outside
of
traditional
33
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 44
the
Supreme
Court
permits
leeway
for
review.
See
Romer,
517
U.S.
at
632-33
classifications
where
the
fit
between
the
34
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 45
35
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 46
36
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 47
37
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 48
valuable
for
something
other
than
just
38
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 49
Tex. 2014).20
Defendants
proffered
justifications
and
statistics
State Officials claim that statistics from the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) prove that linking marriage laws to procreation is
hardly irrational. Red Br. 60. In fact, according to the CDC report on
which Defendants rely, 22.6% of married different-sex couples use
infertility services, a number that does not even take into account the
percentage of married different-sex couples with no desire to have
children, or who are too elderly to do so, demonstrating the gross
overinclusivity of the Marriage Ban. Anjani Chandra, et al., Infertility
20
Service Use in the United States: Data From the National Survey of
Family Growth, 19822010, National Health Statistics Report, Center
for Disease Control, No. 73 at 13 (2014), available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr073.pdf (last visited Nov. 3,
2014).
39
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 50
40
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 51
Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534; see also Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448.
The Marriage Ban must bear a rational relationship to an
independent and legitimate legislative end, to ensure that it
was not enacted for the purpose of disadvantaging the
group burdened by the law. Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. The
majoritys desire to impose the Marriage Ban on same-sex
couples describes how those Louisiana families came to be
41
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 52
exception
to
the
Fourteenth
Amendments
42
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 53
Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants, at 6.
Defendants would have this Court believe that
43
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 54
44
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 55
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on November 7, 2014, I
electronically transmitted the above and foregoing document
to the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System for filing.
Based on the records currently on file, the Clerk of the
Court will transmit a Notice of Electronic Filing to all
participants in this case, who are all registered CM/ECF
users.
45
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 56
46
Case: 14-31037
Document: 00512830785
Page: 57
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of
FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B) and FED. R. APP. P. 29(d)
because:
This brief contains 6,991 words, excluding the
parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of
FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements
of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because:
This brief has been prepared in a proportionally
spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word
2010 (14.0.7128.5000), MSO Professional Plus, in
Century Schoolbook 14-point font (12-point for
footnotes).
47