Filed Date: Feb. 20, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 20, 2018, a married same-sex couple filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) for violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses. The plaintiffs were represented by Lambda Legal, Americans United, and a private firm.
The plaintiffs alleged that the federal defendants unconstitutionally provided taxpayer funds to USCCB (and their sub-grantees) to administer federal child welfare services for unaccompanied refugee children, as they granted these funds fully knowing that USCCB discriminated against same-sex couples seeking to foster or adopt children through these programs. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief establishing the defendants' constitutional violations. They also sought injunctive relief requiring the federal defendants to ensure the plaintiffs could apply to these programs without discrimination and with adequate safeguards to prevent any use of religious or other criteria to exclude applicants based on their sexual orientation, sex, or the same-sex character of their marriage. They also sought nominal monetary damages and attorney’s fees. This case was assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta.
A year before the lawsuit, in February 2017, the plaintiffs had sought to foster a child through Catholic Charities of Fort Worth, a sub-grantee of the USCCB under the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM) Program and the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) Program. After Catholic Charities realized that the plaintiffs were a same-sex couple that did not “mirror the holy family,” their application was denied. The plaintiffs immediately reported this discrimination to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), but they did not receive a response until mid-April 2017. ORR’s response did not address the questions and only asked for the name of the staffer who allegedly discriminated against them. The plaintiffs provided this information in early May 2017 and received a “thank you” note the next day, but did not receive any further communication from either ORR or Catholic Charities.
In March 2018, about one month after their initial filing, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add the National LGBT Bar Association as a plaintiff. The Association is a professional membership-based organization comprised of more than 10,000 members of the legal community who support LGBT rights. They joined the suit on behalf of their members who were federal taxpayers who contributed to the general revenues from which Congress appropriated funds to the child welfare programs at issue in this case. They objected to paying for federally funded child welfare services that were provided in a discriminatory manner based on religious principles to which they did not subscribe.
Two months later, on May 21, the federal defendants and the USCCB each filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. They claimed that the plaintiffs lacked personal standing because their alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the government’s challenged conduct and would not be redressable by a favorable decision, and that they lacked taxpayer standing to make an Establishment Clause claim because the allegedly unconstitutional funding was based a discretionary decision of the executive branch rather than a statute. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and oral argument was set for late November 2018.
After the argument, parties were instructed to submit a joint status report within two weeks of the hearing. The first status report was submitted on December 14, 2018, and the second was scheduled to be submitted a month later. However, the lapse of appropriations for the federal government in early January 2019 derailed this plan because the federal defendants' attorneys were no longer allowed to work. On January 8, 2019, the court granted the federal defendants' motion to stay the case until the appropriations were restored.
The next joint status report, submitted on February 8, 2019, indicated that while parties engaged in a good-faith effort to reach a settlement, they remained unable to resolve their issues at that time. In mid-February 2019, the court issued an order stating that the proceedings for the defendants’ motion to dismiss would go forward, while encouraging the parties to continue their settlement discussions.
On June 12, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court agreed that none of the plaintiffs had taxpayer standing to assert an Establishment Clause violation, and as that was the only claim asserted by the National LGBT Bar Association, they were dismissed from the case. The married couple, however, had sufficient individual standing to pursue all three causes of action, and therefore the remainder of the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied. 391 F.Supp.3d 23.
After over a year and a half of discovery, in March 2021 the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case so they could try to negotiate a settlement, and the court granted a stay until May 7. The stay was extended twice more. On August 23, 2021, the court resumed the proceedings because the parties had not settled.
On November 8, 2021, the federal defendants filed a motion to stay the case because they had developed a new policy that could make the plaintiffs’ claims moot. Under the new policy, people in the area where the plaintiffs lived who wanted to foster children through the URM program would contact a third-party organization, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), which would learn information about the prospective foster parent(s) and then direct them to one of the sub-grantees to be licensed and trained. This would allow same-sex couples to become foster parents because USCRI would forward them to a different sub-grantee, Upbring, which would accept same-sex couples. The defendants requested a stay in the case so they could implement this new arrangement. The defendants also noted that the new policy was specifically for the URM program because the USCCB was not part of the UAC program in the area anymore. The plaintiffs opposed the motion.
About two weeks later, the court granted a stay until January 7, 2022. The stay was later extended through April 1 of the same year. On April 8, 2022, the federal defendants filed a status report stating that the new policy involving USCRI had been implemented.
On July 27, 2022, motions for summary judgment were filed by the plaintiffs, the federal defendants, and USCCB. In their motion, the plaintiffs argued that the new policy did not moot their claims because it only exacerbated the discrimination by condoning a system that treated same-sex couples differently from other couples without changing USCCB’s discriminatory policies. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that Upbring, the organization to which USCRI would refer same-sex couples, did not have the experience or capacity for administering the foster program that USCCB's sub-grantee had.
As of November 2022, the court had not yet ruled on the motions for summary judgment.
Summary Authors
Elise Coletta (7/14/2019)
Cedar Hobbs (3/17/2020)
Micah Pollens-Dempsey (11/6/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6310461/parties/marouf-v-azar/
Andrapalliyal, Vinita B. (District of Columbia)
Barron, Graham L. (District of Columbia)
BECKENHAUER, ERIC B (District of Columbia)
Bell, Lauren Hash (District of Columbia)
Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
Burns, Michael Anthony (District of Columbia)
Chee, Heaven Chanel (District of Columbia)
Chin Chee, Heaven Chanel (Texas)
Choe, Kenneth Y. (District of Columbia)
Culora, Katherine (District of Columbia)
Dagogo-Jack, Alali (California)
Ellsworth, Jessica Lynn (District of Columbia)
Fleury, Jennifer A (District of Columbia)
Gendall, Michael David (District of Columbia)
Gliksberg, Jamie Avra (Illinois)
Huang, James Anthony (District of Columbia)
Jr, Kenneth Dale (District of Columbia)
Katskee, Richard B. (District of Columbia)
Kleiman, Daryl Lian (New York)
Loewy, Karen (District of Columbia)
Quinn, Brendan C. (District of Columbia)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita B. (District of Columbia)
Barron, Graham L. (District of Columbia)
BECKENHAUER, ERIC B (District of Columbia)
Bell, Lauren Hash (District of Columbia)
Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
BERNS, MATTHEW JOSEPH (District of Columbia)
Berwick, Benjamin Leon (District of Columbia)
Borum, Marian L. (District of Columbia)
Braswell, Marina Utgoff (District of Columbia)
Brown, Walter Wayne (District of Columbia)
Bryce, Peter (District of Columbia)
Burnham, James Mahoney (District of Columbia)
Cellier, Jason Emil (District of Columbia)
Cirino, Paul (District of Columbia)
Clark, Andrew E. (District of Columbia)
Cohen, Jason Todd (District of Columbia)
Comber, Michael A. (District of Columbia)
Crane-Hirsch, Daniel K (District of Columbia)
Cutini, Drake S. (District of Columbia)
DAVIS, ETHAN PRICE (District of Columbia)
DeJulius, Leon F. Jr. (Pennsylvania)
Dick, Anthony J. (District of Columbia)
Edelschick, Douglas G. (District of Columbia)
Fagan, Shannon L. (District of Columbia)
Field, Brian J. (District of Columbia)
Greene, Anna Tucker (District of Columbia)
GROGG, ADAM ANDERSON (District of Columbia)
Harlow, James William (District of Columbia)
Haynes, Fred Elmore (District of Columbia)
Hendry, Melanie Dyani (District of Columbia)
Herrmann, Heide L. (District of Columbia)
Hostetler, Eric G. (District of Columbia)
Humphreys, Bradley P. (District of Columbia)
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia)
KADE, ELIZABETH L. (District of Columbia)
Kell, Gerald Cooper (District of Columbia)
KENNEDY, BRIAN G (District of Columbia)
Kidwell, Judith A. (District of Columbia)
Kolsky, Joshua M. (District of Columbia)
Lawrence, Matthew J.B. (District of Columbia)
Lee, Jason (District of Columbia)
Lynch, Jason C. (District of Columbia)
MCELVAIN, JOEL L. (District of Columbia)
Morgan, Keith V. (District of Columbia)
Morgan, Sherri L. (District of Columbia)
Nelson, James T. (District of Columbia)
Nolan, Andrew L. (District of Columbia)
Orloff, Serena Maya (District of Columbia)
Palmer-Ball, Katherine Boyd (District of Columbia)
Peterson, Benton Gregory (District of Columbia)
Pfaffenroth, Peter C. (District of Columbia)
Phipps, Peter J. (District of Columbia)
Powers, James R (District of Columbia)
Prober, Bonnie J. (District of Columbia)
Pruski, Jacek (District of Columbia)
Raimer, David T. (District of Columbia)
Rogers, Joshua L. (District of Columbia)
Rudolph, Maureen Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Sallmen, Joshua R. (District of Columbia)
Saltman, Julie S. (District of Columbia)
Schaefer, Daniel Patrick (District of Columbia)
Schollaert, Albert W. (District of Columbia)
Seifert, Karen Patricia (District of Columbia)
Sherman, Michael Jeffrey (District of Columbia)
Shoaibi, Alexander Daniel (District of Columbia)
Simon, Jeremy S. (District of Columbia)
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)
Sus, Nikhel (District of Columbia)
Sverdlov, Alexander V. (District of Columbia)
SWEET, JOEL M. (District of Columbia)
Taaffe, Damon William (District of Columbia)
Truong, John Cuong (District of Columbia)
Walker, Johnny Hillary (District of Columbia)
Wallack, Carol L. (District of Columbia)
Whitaker, Claire M. (District of Columbia)
Womack, Eric R. (District of Columbia)
Woods, Shelese M. (District of Columbia)
Yee, Marsha Wellknown (District of Columbia)
Young, Danielle Wolfson (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6310461/marouf-v-azar/
Last updated April 14, 2024, 3:12 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 20, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two individual plaintiffs, a married lesbian couple; the National LGBT Bar Association, a non-profit membership-based 501(c)(6) professional association comprised of more than 10,000 members of the legal community supportive of LGBT rights.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Administration for Children and Families, Federal
Office of Refugee Resettlement (within the Administration for Children and Families), Federal
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Non-profit or advocacy
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Foster care (benefits, training)
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+: