Baskin v. Bogan
12 F. Supp. 3d 1144
S.D. Ind.2014Background
- Three consolidated cases (Baskin, Fujii, Lee) challenge Indiana Code § 31-11-1-1, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and voids same-sex marriages; plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs include five same-sex couples (four unmarried, one married out-of-state) and minor children; all reside in Indiana and claim harms from being denied marriage and recognition.
- Procedurally: parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; court found no genuine dispute of material fact and resolved constitutional questions as a matter of law.
- Defendants included Indiana Attorney General, Governor, and State revenue/health officials; court held Attorney General and certain state officials proper parties under Ex parte Young but dismissed Governor Pence as improper party for lack of redressability.
- Court considered whether Baker v. Nelson barred relief and concluded later doctrinal developments (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, etc.) render Baker noncontrolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper parties (standing & Ex parte Young) | Zoeller and state officials enforce criminal/administrative laws and are proper defendants | Governor lacks ability to redress plaintiffs' injuries | Attorney General and certain agency heads are proper defendants; Governor Pence is not a proper party |
| Effect of Baker v. Nelson | Baker is outdated by doctrinal developments (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor) and does not bar relief | Baker requires dismissal because it ruled the issue insubstantial | Baker not controlling; later Supreme Court developments free the court to decide the merits |
| Due Process — right to marry | Right to marry includes choosing one’s partner; exclusion of same-sex couples infringes fundamental right and triggers strict scrutiny | Right to marry should be limited to historical definition (one man, one woman) per Glucksberg | Fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples; Indiana’s ban fails strict-scrutiny tailoring and violates Due Process |
| Equal Protection — ban and nonrecognition | Ban and refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages discriminate based on sexual orientation and target a class for exclusion; no rational basis for exclusion | State may favor opposite-sex unions because of procreative capacity; classification is rationally related to legitimate ends | Ban and nonrecognition violate Equal Protection; no rational basis and evidence of animus; § 31-11-1-1(a) and (b) unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal of same-sex marriage claim; court assessed whether subsequent developments removed its preclusive effect)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (laws born of animus toward gays and lesbians violate Equal Protection)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (overruled Bowers and protected private consensual sexual intimacy under liberty principles)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (federal statute denying recognition to lawful same-sex marriages violated due process and equal protection principles)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (fundamental right to marry cannot be restricted on arbitrary classifications such as race)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (reaffirmed marriage as a fundamental right implicating heightened scrutiny)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (framework for identifying fundamental rights rooted in history and tradition)