Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352

Virginia enforces a ban on same-sex marriage via Va. Code § 20-45.2, § 20-45.3, and the Marshall/Newman Amendment to the state constitution, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples and denying recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
Plaintiffs Timothy Bostic and Tony London and Carol Schall and Mary Townley challenge the Virginia Marriage Laws as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the Virginia Marriage Laws, with the injunction stayed pending appeal.
Schaefer (Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk) denied Bostic and London a marriage license; Rainey (State Registrar) enforces the laws and maintains the marriage-licensing and birth-record forms, linking standing to their actions.
The Fourth Circuit addresses: standing for each plaintiff, whether Baker v. Nelson remains binding post-Windsor, and what level of scrutiny applies, ultimately applying strict scrutiny and finding the laws unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of plaintiffs vs. defendants	Plaintiffs have injuries traceable to defendants' enforcement.	Standing defenses oppose some plaintiffs against some defendants.	All plaintiffs have standing to sue at least one defendant.
Binding effect of Baker v. Nelson after Windsor	Baker remains binding precedent on the merits.	Baker is not binding post-Windsor due to doctrinal developments.	Baker is not binding precedent; post-Windsor developments control.
What level of scrutiny applies to the Virginia Marriage Laws	Strict scrutiny should apply because the right to marry is fundamental and includes same-sex marriage.	Glucksberg rational-basis or other standard may apply.	Strict scrutiny applies due to the fundamental right to marry.
Do the Virginia Marriage Laws satisfy strict scrutiny	The laws fail to meet compelling state interests and are overbroad/underinclusive.	The laws are narrowly tailored to compelling interests (federalism, tradition, procreation, childrearing).	The laws fail strict scrutiny and are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples and out-of-state marriages.
Do the laws violate equal protection under heightened scrutiny	Sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny due to discriminatory impact.	No heightened scrutiny; rational basis applies to sexual orientation classifications.	Court adopts strict scrutiny; equal protection analysis under rational basis is not reached when strict scrutiny applies.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (fundamental right to marry; racial classifications cannot justify restrictions)
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (fundamental right to marry; rational basis insufficient for restrictions tied to child support)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (inmates' right to marry; strict scrutiny when fundamental rights implicated)
Glucksberg v. Connecticut, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (test for identifying a new fundamental right; careful description required)
Rom er v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (equal protection analysis regarding sexual orientation under rational basis scrutiny)
Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional; discusses rights of same-sex couples post-recognition)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (underinclusivity as a sign of unconstitutional discrimination)
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1974) (rational-basis justification for government classifications when one group benefits a legitimate objective)
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1943) (fundamental rights protected from majoritarian manipulation)