Bostic v. Rainey
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19110
E.D. Va.2014Background
- Four plaintiffs (two same-sex couples) challenged Virginia laws (Va. Const. art. I, §15-A; Va. Code §§20-45.2, 20-45.3) that prohibit same-sex marriage and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for Fourteenth Amendment violations.
- Bostic and London attempted to obtain a Virginia marriage license and were denied; Schall and Townley are married in California but Virginia refuses recognition, causing concrete legal harms (medical access, adoption, parental recognition, tax and inheritance issues).
- Defendants included the Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk (Schaefer) and the State Registrar of Vital Records (Rainey); Rainey later declined to defend the laws and was replaced by an intervening county clerk as a proponent.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and a preliminary injunction; Proponents moved for summary judgment defending the statutes and constitutional amendment on grounds of tradition, federalism, and child welfare.
- The court found plaintiffs had Article III standing (license denial and stigmatic injuries), held that doctrinal developments had eroded the precedential force of Baker v. Nelson, and proceeded to assess due process and equal protection claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Virginia's bans on same-sex marriage violate substantive due process (fundamental right to marry) | Bostic et al.: marriage is a fundamental right; bans deny same-sex couples that right and burden intimate association and autonomy | Proponents: marriage definition is a state prerogative rooted in tradition and federalism; limits further legitimate interests like procreation and optimal child-rearing | Held for plaintiffs — marriage is fundamental; laws fail strict scrutiny and are unconstitutional as applied and facially to the extent they bar same-sex marriage |
| Whether the bans violate equal protection | Plaintiffs: laws discriminate against similarly situated couples (same-sex vs opposite-sex) without a rational relation to legitimate state interests | Defendants: laws rationally further tradition, state authority over domestic relations, and child welfare concerns tied to opposite-sex parenting | Held for plaintiffs — laws lack a rational basis (and would fail heightened scrutiny); unconstitutional under Equal Protection Clause |
| Whether Baker v. Nelson (1972 dismissal) bars federal review | Plaintiffs: doctrinal developments (e.g., Romer, Lawrence, Windsor) have eroded Baker's precedential force | Defendants: Baker's summary dismissal remains controlling precedent precluding relief | Held: Baker is no longer binding given subsequent doctrinal developments; court exercises jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiffs may obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 | Plaintiffs: state officials enforce unconstitutional laws, so §1983 provides a remedy | Defendants: not contested substantively; some raised standing/causal-connection objections | Held: §1983 claims are viable because constitutional violations are fairly attributable to state action; plaintiffs entitled to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (recognizing marriage as a fundamental right and striking down bans on interracial marriage)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (federal denial of recognition to lawful same-sex marriages violates due process and equal protection principles)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (invalidating law motivated by animus; heightened scrutiny of laws targeting homosexuals undermined)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (striking criminalization of private, consensual same-sex intimacy; rejecting moral disapproval as sufficient justification)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (marriage rights as liberty interest requiring close tailoring of burdens on marriage)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (Supreme Court dismissal for want of a substantial federal question; discussed and found not controlling here)
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) (recognizing marriage-related rights as fundamental and protected by due process)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (liberty interests include intimate personal choices central to dignity and autonomy)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding evidence that same-sex couples parent as well as opposite-sex couples; Massachusetts/California precedent rejecting procreation rationale)