Barber v. Bryant
193 F. Supp. 3d 677
S.D. Miss.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (13 individuals, Joshua Generation MCC, Campaign for Southern Equality) sued Mississippi officials to enjoin HB 1523 before its July 1, 2016 effective date, alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
- HB 1523 enumerates three "§2" beliefs (marriage = man+woman; sexual relations reserved to such marriage; sex defined by biological birth anatomy/genetics) and shields persons acting on those beliefs from a wide array of state sanctions and penalties, including recusal protections for marriage-license officials.
- Plaintiffs include clergy who hold contrary religious views, LGBT and unmarried plaintiffs who say the law stigmatizes and removes protections, and organizations representing affected people; defendants are state officials sued in office-capacity (Governor, AG, DHS director, Vital Records registrar).
- The State defended HB 1523 as a religious-accommodation and anti-retaliation measure responding to Obergefell; plaintiffs argued it privileges particular religious doctrines and authorizes arbitrary discrimination against LGBT and unmarried persons.
- The court consolidated preliminary-injunction hearings, found plaintiffs had standing and Ex parte Young relief was available against the officials, and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of HB 1523 as violating both the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring pre-enforcement Establishment and Equal Protection claims | Plaintiffs (individuals and associations) face imminent stigmatic and concrete injuries from loss of existing protections and state endorsement of §2 beliefs | Defendants argued injuries speculative, plaintiffs are not the object of the law | Court: plaintiffs have standing (concrete, imminent, causation, redressable); associations have associational standing |
| Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young | Suits seek prospective relief against officials enforcing an unconstitutional law | State asserted sovereign immunity bar | Court: Ex parte Young applies; defendants have enforcement connection and prospective relief is proper |
| Equal Protection — does HB 1523 single out and demean LGBT and unmarried persons (animus/rational-basis) | HB 1523 withdraws and preempts protections for LGBT/unmarried persons, reflecting animus and creating second-class status | State argued law protects religious exercise and does not impede issuance of marriage licenses | Court: Substantial likelihood plaintiffs prevail — law lacks rational relationship to legitimate ends and effectively denies equal protection (Romer/Windsor analogies) |
| Establishment Clause — does HB 1523 prefer particular religious beliefs or impermissibly burden others | Plaintiffs: §2 expressly privileges specific religious/moral convictions and allows accommodations that injure third parties; law conveys state preference | State: Law is neutral accommodation protecting conscience post-Obergefell | Court: Substantial likelihood plaintiffs prevail — §2 establishes denominational preference and accommodations impose burdens on others (Larson, Caldor line) |
Key Cases Cited
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (government may not aid or prefer one religious theory over another)
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (government action with predominant purpose to advance religion violates Establishment Clause)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (law that withdraws protections from a targeted class and reflects animus violates Equal Protection)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (same-sex couples entitled to equal dignity and marriage rights; Free Exercise protected but cannot subordinate others)
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (DOMA invalid where principal purpose was to impose inequality and demean same-sex couples)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (statute giving denominational preferences violates Establishment Clause and triggers strict scrutiny)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (Lemon test for Establishment Clause analysis; referenced in doctrinal discussion)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (religious accommodation framework: accommodations that impose no disadvantage on third parties are more readily upheld)