Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder
962 F. Supp. 2d 1252
N.D. Okla.2014Background
- Two same-sex couples sued: the Barton couple (married in CA) challenged DOMA §§2–3 and Parts A–B of Oklahoma’s SQ 711; the Bishop couple (denied an Oklahoma license) challenged Part A of SQ 711.
- DOMA §3 (federal definition of marriage) was later held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor; DOMA §2 (permitting states not to recognize other states’ same‑sex marriages) remained unchallenged here.
- SQ 711 (Okla. Const. art. 2 §35 A–C) defines marriage as one man/one woman (Part A) and forbids recognition of out‑of‑state same‑sex marriages (Part B).
- Procedurally: initial suits named state officials; Tenth Circuit required plaintiffs to sue the clerk with authority over licenses/records; the Tulsa County clerk (Smith) was sued in her official capacity; the U.S. (then defending DOMA) and intervenor BLAG also participated.
- The district court: dismissed Barton’s §2 DOMA claim for lack of standing; held Barton’s §3 DOMA claim moot after Windsor; dismissed Barton’s challenge to Part B for lack of standing; found Bishop had standing and held Part A of SQ 711 violated the Equal Protection Clause, enjoining enforcement as to issuance/recording of marriage licenses to same‑sex couples (stay pending appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge DOMA §2 (Barton) | §2 causes non‑recognition and stigma and thus injures married same‑sex couples domiciled in non‑recognizing states. | §2 is permissive and not the proximate cause of non‑recognition; injury flows from state law, not the federal statute. | Barton lacks standing — §2 is not a sufficiently causative source of the alleged injuries. |
| Challenge to DOMA §3 (Barton) | §3 denies federal benefits to lawfully married same‑sex couples. | United States ceased defending §3; Windsor resolved the issue. | Moot — Windsor invalidated §3 and the federal government ceased enforcement; declaratory relief would be duplicative. |
| Standing to challenge SQ 711 Part B (non‑recognition) (Barton) | Part B prevents recognition of their CA marriage and causes concrete injuries. | Clerk Smith has no authority to "recognize" out‑of‑state marriages; plaintiffs sued wrong official; no causal connection. | Barton lacks standing to challenge Part B; Smith’s uncontroverted affidavit showing no recognition authority was dispositive. |
| Constitutionality of SQ 711 Part A (Bishop) — Equal Protection | Part A intentionally discriminates against same‑sex couples desiring Oklahoma marriage licenses and lacks a rational basis. | Part A furthers legitimate interests (promoting procreation, optimal child‑rearing, preserving marriage, avoiding unintended consequences); rational basis review should uphold it. | Part A intentionally discriminates against same‑sex couples and, under rational‑basis review, the proffered justifications are irrational or too attenuated; Part A violates the Equal Protection Clause. Injunction granted (stayed pending appeal). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (held DOMA §3 unconstitutional; federal government cannot treat state‑sanctioned same‑sex marriages as unequal)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (U.S. 2013) (addressed standing of ballot‑measure proponents; held they lacked appellate standing)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal for want of a substantial federal question; discussed as non‑binding in light of later doctrinal developments)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (invalidated a Colorado amendment borne of animus; moral disapproval alone insufficient)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (recognized liberty interests in private sexual conduct; rejected moral disapproval as sole justification)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational‑basis review cannot rest on classifications so attenuated as to be arbitrary)
- SECSYS, LLC v. Vigil, 666 F.3d 678 (10th Cir. 2012) (framework for identifying intentional discrimination and testing justifications under equal protection)