Filed Date: March 7, 2014
Closed Date: Feb. 23, 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
Plaintiffs in this federal marriage equality lawsuit are four same-sex Indiana couples -- two male, two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking to have their out-of-state marriage recognized. They filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 7, 2014, to challenge the constitutionality of Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. Indiana's statute banning same-sex marriages and "void[ing]" out-of-state same-sex marriages is IC 31-11-1-1, Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act, which provides: "(a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. (b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized."
Plaintiffs alleged that the Indiana law violates the federal Constitution. And, to the extent it is purportedly authorized by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they claimed that the federal statute is also unconstitutional. (Section 2 of DOMA provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."). They brought claims under the Equal Protection Clause (alleging both sex and sexual orientation discrimination), the Due Process Clause (arguing that marriage is a fundamental right), the First Amendment (arguing that the marriage ban violated their freedom of association), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the right to travel, and the Establishment Clause.
On June 25, 2014, the court (Judge Richard Young) granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 26 and July 27, Governor Pence's legal counsel issued two memoranda on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Plaintiffs then sought reconsideration on the court's dismissal of the case, arguing that the memoranda demonstrated the Governor did have authority to enforce the ban and the court therefore did have subject matter jurisdiction over the issue.
On September 16, Judge Young granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider. He held that the memoranda demonstrated the Governor did have the "specific ability to command the executive branch regarding the law." Therefore, claims as to the state's refusal to recognize out-of-state marriages could be heard against the Governor. But the claims brought by unmarried plaintiffs remained dismissed because the Governor and agencies lacked the authority to grant the relief sought. 47 F.Supp.3d 805. The following day, the court reopened the case.
On February 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed notice of voluntary dismissal, stating they had resolved all of their claims. We have no further information on the resolution. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Margo Schlanger (3/14/2014)
Priyah Kaul (11/27/2014)
Virginia Weeks (2/18/2018)
Baskin v. Bogan, Southern District of Indiana (2014)
Fujii v. Governor, State of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana (2014)
Bowling v. Pence, Southern District of Indiana (2014)
Lee v. Pence, Southern District of Indiana (2014)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4266727/parties/love-v-pence/
Baker, Tim A. (Indiana)
Canon, Daniel J. (Kentucky)
Dunman, Joe L. (Kentucky)
Dunman, L. Joe (Indiana)
Elliott, Dawn R. (Kentucky)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4266727/love-v-pence/
Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 3:43 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Indiana
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 7, 2014
Closing Date: Feb. 23, 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four same-sex Indiana couples, two male and two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking legal recognition of their out-of-state marriage by Indiana.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+: