Baskin v. Bogan
12 F. Supp. 3d 1137
S.D. Ind.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Amy Sandler and Nikole (Niki) Quasney are a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship, married in Massachusetts in 2013 and previously in a civil union in Illinois; they have two young children.
- Quasney is a long-term cancer patient (Stage IV ovarian cancer) whose treatment and prognosis are central to the urgency of relief; a rise in tumor marker levels prompted imminent chemotherapy.
- Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring Indiana to recognize their out-of-state marriage and to list Sandler as Quasney’s surviving spouse on Quasney’s death certificate if Quasney dies in Indiana.
- Defendants rely on Indiana Code § 31-11-1-1(b) to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, arguing marriage definition and recognition are matters of state policy and comity.
- The court conducted a TRO hearing, found Plaintiffs satisfied TRO standards, and enjoined enforcement of the Indiana statute as to Plaintiffs for 28 days, ordering the State Health Commissioner to issue a death certificate reflecting Quasney as "married" with Sandler as surviving spouse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/appropriate remedy (TRO vs declaratory relief) | Plaintiffs assert cognizable Article III injuries (cross-state treatment, denial of benefits, dignitary harm, emotional distress) remedied by TRO | Defendants contend Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and lack a cognizable injury for TRO | Court: Plaintiffs have standing; dignitary injury from nonrecognition is cognizable under Windsor; TRO appropriate |
| Likelihood of success on merits (constitutionality of nonrecognition statute) | Indiana’s nonrecognition singles out same-sex marriages and likely violates Equal Protection and Due Process; precedents granting relief to terminally ill spouses persuasive | State argues authority to define marriage, recognition is comity, and statute serves legitimate state interests (procreation/child welfare) | Court: Plaintiffs have at least some likelihood of success; state rationale is insufficient and inconsistent (recognizes non-procreative opposite-sex marriages) |
| Adequacy of legal remedies | Contractual instruments and posthumous amendments (e.g., amended death certificate later) insufficient to remedy survivor benefits and dignitary harm | State: remedies like amended death certificate, health-care directive, wills, are adequate | Court: Remedies inadequate because they don't address survivor benefits and dignitary harm |
| Irreparable harm and balance of equities | Ongoing constitutional violation causes irreparable harm; emotional/dignitary injury and loss of benefits are irreparable; balance favors Plaintiffs | State asserted no irreparable harm from TRO | Court: Constitutional violation is irreparable harm; no countervailing irreparable harm to state; balance favors Plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (TRO standard and preliminary injunction framework)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (dignitary harms from federal nonrecognition and guidance on equal protection implications)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (constitutional limits on state marriage regulations)
- Harris v. City of Zion, Lake County, Ill., 927 F.2d 1401 (7th Cir. 1991) (standing requires an injury-in-fact; indignation alone insufficient)
- Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1978) (continuing constitutional violation as proof of irreparable harm)