Bassett v. Snyder
951 F. Supp. 2d 939
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Five same-sex couples allege Michigan Public Act 297 (2011) unconstitutional as it burdens equal protection and due process by denying domestic partner benefits; Act bars public employers from providing medical/other fringe benefits to cohabitants unless married, dependent, or eligible to inherit.
- Public Act 297’s text and historical background: prior practice of extending benefits to domestic partners under local plans; state constitutional marriage amendment (2004) and subsequent opinions/decisions: National Pride At Work decisions affecting eligibility criteria.
- Public Act 297 targeted same-sex partners by prohibiting benefits to non-married cohabitants, thereby creating a sexual orientation classification in effect.
- Plaintiffs include five publicly employed individuals and their same-sex partners who have lost or will lose health benefits; several non-publicly employed plaintiffs rely on partner benefits through the employed partners.
- Plaintiffs seek a declaration of unconstitutionality and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of Act 297 while the case is pending.
- Court proceedings: defendant move to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction; court grants in part/denies in part and finds standing, ripeness, and equal protection likelihood, but dismisses substantive due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing and ripeness to challenge Act 297 | Miller/Johnson and others allege concrete, imminent injuries from loss of coverage | Standing and ripeness requirements not satisfied; injuries too speculative | Plaintiffs have standing and claims ripe; injuries concrete and imminent. |
| Whether Burford abstention applies to this constitutional challenge | Abstention would abdicate federal review of federal constitutional rights | State interests and policy considerations warrant Burford abstention | Abstention not appropriate; federal review proper. |
| Whether Public Act 297 burdens the plaintiffs’ substantive due process right to intimate association | Act burdens intimate association by penalizing same-sex partnerships | No direct/demonstrable burden on intimate association; no fundamental right violated | Substantive due process claim dismissed; no protected right burden shown. |
| Whether Act 297 violates Equal Protection; standard of review and animus | Classification based on sexual orientation, with discriminatory purpose; not rationally related to costs | Rational basis; cost-savings and traditional marriage interests justify limits | Act 297 contains a discriminatory classification; likelihood of success on equal protection claim; preliminary injunction granted. |
| Scope of remedy for the injunction (class-wide vs limited to named plaintiffs) | Full relief requires enjoining enforcement against all public employers | Relief should be limited to named plaintiffs | Wholesome injunction against enforcement of Act 297 applies to public employers, not just named plaintiffs; class-wide relief appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability; prudential limits apply)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (standing and ripeness concepts; injury must be concrete and imminent)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (equal protection; animus-based classifications invalid)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (fundamental rights extend to intimate relationships; scrutiny applied)
- Davis v. Prison Health Services, 679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2012) (sexual orientation not a suspect class in Sixth Circuit; rational basis review applied)