Case: Blankenship v. Snyder

2:14-cv-12221 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: June 5, 2014

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 5, 2014, a same-sex couple, represented by private counsel, in Michigan challenged the state's refusal to recognize their marriage, filing a claim against the state pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, plaintiffs had traveled to the State of New York and gotten married under state law. Upon returning, Michigan did not recognize t…

On June 5, 2014, a same-sex couple, represented by private counsel, in Michigan challenged the state's refusal to recognize their marriage, filing a claim against the state pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, plaintiffs had traveled to the State of New York and gotten married under state law. Upon returning, Michigan did not recognize this marriage.

Specifically, Michigan Public Act 324 had invalidated by statute all same-sex marriages in Michigan, and Michigan Public Act 334 prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions (both statutes were passed in 1996). Additionally, the 2004 Michigan Marriage Amendment essentially codified these restrictions into the state's constitution. One of the plaintiffs here was a legal parent to an adopted child, but the couple was prevented from joint adoption in Michigan because of their unrecognized marriage. The plaintiffs alleged that this deprives their child of many benefits associated with recognition of a legal family unit and deprives the couple of equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment declaring that the out-of-state marital nonrecognition provisions of the Michigan Marriage Amendment and the 1996 statutes violated their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment; an injunction preventing the defendants, in their official

capacities, from attempting to block state and local governmental recognition of

existing, valid marriages between same-sex couples performed in other

jurisdictions; and an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

On February 10, 2015, the court (Judge Arthur J. Tarnow) granted a stay in this case, pending the U.S. Supreme Court resolution of DeBoer v. Snyder. The latter case, while not featuring a couple with a marriage recognized in a different jurisdiction, challenged the constitutionality of the Michigan Public Acts at issue here as well as the Michigan Marriage amendment. DeBoer v. Snyder invalidated Michigan's same-sex marriage restrictions at the district court level, was reversed by the 6th Circuit, and was heard in a consolidated action as Obergefell v. Hodges before the United States Supreme Court in April of 2015.

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision in Obergefell that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015).

On July 16, 2015, the stay was lifted and this case was reopened. On July 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiffs' claims were moot in light of the Obergefell decision, after the plaintiffs' counsel denied a request for concurrence in the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs' response was that while the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell granted a substantial part of the relief they requested, the invalidation of the Michigan Marriage Amendment, it did not grant another part of their requested relief: the invalidation of the 1996 statutory provisions.

On October 22, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that regardless of whether the 1996 provisions had technically been declared invalid, there was no reasonable chance that that the defendants would again deny recognition to the plaintiffs' marriage. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as moot and found that the plaintiffs would not be "prevailing parties" entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Eric Cole (3/30/2015)

Sarah McDonald (8/7/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13187478/parties/blankenship-v-snyder/


Judge(s)

Hluchaniuk, Michael J. (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Gibbs, Alec S. (Michigan)

Attorney for Defendant

Booth, Joshua O. (Michigan)

Grossi, Christina M. (Michigan)

Murphy, Michael F (Michigan)

Judge(s)

Hluchaniuk, Michael J. (Michigan)

Tarnow, Arthur J. (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:14-cv-12221

Docket [PACER]

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

Docket
1

2:14-cv-12221

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Blankenship et al v. Snyder et al

June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

Complaint
28

2:14-cv-12221

Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Stay And Administratively Terminating Defendants' Motion To Dismiss

Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

Order/Opinion
34

2:14-cv-12221

Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13187478/blankenship-v-snyder/

Last updated Feb. 29, 2024, 3 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645−4674544 − Fee: &#036 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Genesee − County Where Action Arose: Genesee − County of 1st Defendant: Eaton. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan, 14−cv−1149, Judge Mark Goldsmith] (Gibbs, Alec) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

2

SUMMONS Issued for * All Defendants * (TMcg) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (TMcg) (Entered: 06/05/2014)

June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014

3

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael F. Murphy on behalf of Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2014)

June 24, 2014

June 24, 2014

4

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time for State Defendants to Answer 1 Complaint. Answer due by 7/24/2014 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 06/25/2014)

June 25, 2014

June 25, 2014

5

NOTICE by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder of Motion to Consolidate (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

July 1, 2014

July 1, 2014

6

CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. James Bauer served on 6/19/2014, answer due 7/10/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

7

CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Rick Snyder served on 6/19/2014, answer due 7/10/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

8

CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. John Gleason served on 6/17/2014, answer due 7/8/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

9

CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Bill Shuette served on 6/19/2014, answer due 7/10/2014. (Gibbs, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

11

NOTICE of Appearance by Christina M. Grossi on behalf of Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Grossi, Christina) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

12

NOTICE of Appearance by H. William Reising on behalf of James Bauer, John Gleason. (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

13

NOTICE by James Bauer, John Gleason re 5 Notice (Other) Concurrence in Notice of Motion to Consolidate (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

14

MOTION to Stay by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation case, # 2 Document Continuation case, # 3 Index of Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

15

MOTION to Dismiss by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation case, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

16

Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

July 24, 2014

July 24, 2014

17

NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 14 MOTION to Stay filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/29/2014)

July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

18

NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 07/29/2014)

July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 16 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 07/29/2014)

July 29, 2014

July 29, 2014

19

RESPONSE to 14 MOTION to Stay filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Supporting Brief) (Gibbs, Alec) (Entered: 08/14/2014)

Aug. 14, 2014

Aug. 14, 2014

20

STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time to respond 15 MOTION to Dismiss: Response due by 8/14/2014 and 14 MOTION to Stay: Response due by 8/14/2014 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

Aug. 15, 2014

Aug. 15, 2014

21

STIPULATED ORDER Extending Briefing Schedule re 15 MOTION to Dismiss: Response due by 8/28/2014 , Reply due by 9/11/2014 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/19/2014)

Aug. 19, 2014

Aug. 19, 2014

22

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time for Reply re 14 MOTION to Stay: Reply due by 8/28/2014 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 08/19/2014)

Aug. 19, 2014

Aug. 19, 2014

23

REPLY to Response re 14 MOTION to Stay filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2014)

Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

24

NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 23 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 08/28/2014)

Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

25

RESPONSE to 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by All Plaintiffs. (Gibbs, Alec) (Entered: 08/28/2014)

Aug. 28, 2014

Aug. 28, 2014

26

REPLY to Response re 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Murphy, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

27

NOTICE of Joinder/Concurrence in 26 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Bill Shuette, Rick Snyder by James Bauer, John Gleason (Reising, H.) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

Sept. 11, 2014

Sept. 11, 2014

28

ORDER granting 14 MOTION to Stay, terminating 15 MOTION to Dismiss and Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan) (Entered: 02/10/2015)

Feb. 10, 2015

Feb. 10, 2015

29

Lifting Stay

July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

PACER
29

Lifting Stay

July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

PACER
29

Lifting Stay

July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

PACER
29

Lifting Stay

July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

PACER
29

Lifting Stay

July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

PACER
30

Dismiss

July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

PACER
30

Dismiss

July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

PACER
30

Dismiss

July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

PACER
30

Dismiss

July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

PACER
30

Dismiss

July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

PACER
31

Response to Motion

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
31

Response to Motion

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
31

Response to Motion

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
31

Response to Motion

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
31

Response to Motion

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
32

Reply to Response to Motion

Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

PACER
32

Reply to Response to Motion

Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

PACER
32

Reply to Response to Motion

Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

PACER
32

Reply to Response to Motion

Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

PACER
32

Reply to Response to Motion

Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

PACER
33

Joinder/Concurrence

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

PACER
33

Joinder/Concurrence

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

PACER
33

Joinder/Concurrence

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

PACER
33

Joinder/Concurrence

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

PACER
33

Joinder/Concurrence

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

PACER
34

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
34

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
34

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
34

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
34

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
35

Judgment*

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
35

Judgment*

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
35

Judgment*

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
35

Judgment*

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
35

Judgment*

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Same-Sex Marriage

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 5, 2014

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Same-sex Michigan couple, parents to two children, seeking recognition of their New York marriage.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Michigan, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Adoption

Marriage

LGBTQ+:

LGBTQ+

Discrimination-basis:

Sexual orientation