Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278

Two consolidated federal lawsuits challenge Florida’s constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage and nonrecognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages; plaintiffs include 22 Florida residents (married elsewhere, prospective spouses, and an advocacy organization).
Defendants named in official capacities: Florida Governor, Attorney General, Surgeon General, Secretary of the Dept. of Management Services, and a county Clerk; court dismissed Governor and Attorney General as redundant and proceeded against Secretary, Surgeon General, and Clerk.
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of Florida Constitution Article I, §27 and Fla. Stat. §§ 741.212 and 741.04(1); factual harms include denial of pension designation, health benefits, survivor Social Security, corrected death certificate, and marriage licenses.
Court held the right to marry is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment and applied strict scrutiny to Florida’s same-sex marriage provisions.
Court found the State’s asserted interests (including procreation) insufficient and concluded the bans are unconstitutional under Due Process and Equal Protection; granted a preliminary injunction but issued a temporary, limited stay to avoid instability while related appellate stays are resolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the right to marry includes same-sex couples	Right to marry is a fundamental right; includes choosing same-sex spouse	Right at issue is narrowly "marry a person of the same sex," not the general right to marry; state may limit marriage definition	Right to marry is fundamental and applies regardless of spouse's sex; plaintiffs likely to prevail
Level of scrutiny	Fundamental-rights trigger strict scrutiny of the bans	Bans are permissible under state's authority to define marriage; rely on Baker/Lofton	Strict scrutiny applies; state interests fail under strict (and even lesser) scrutiny
Validity of Florida’s nonrecognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages	Nonrecognition denies rights to couples lawfully married elsewhere and violates Fourteenth Amendment	State prerogative to define marriage permits nonrecognition	Nonrecognition is unconstitutional; state cannot ignore lawful out-of-state marriages
Proper defendants and relief	Seek relief against officials who administer benefits, death certificates, and marriage licenses	Governor/AG not responsible for enforcement; Clerk acting under state law	Secretary, Surgeon General, and Clerk are proper defendants; Governor and Attorney General dismissed as redundant

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (recognition of marriage as fundamental right that invalidated race-based bans)
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (Supreme Court invalidation of federal nonrecognition of same-sex marriages; state marriage definitions subject to constitutional limits)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (federal suit for prospective relief against state officials)
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (right to marry is fundamental; strict scrutiny where state restricts marriage)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (marriage recognized as fundamental right even in prison context)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (striking down criminalization of private same-sex intimacy and rejecting moral-disapproval justification)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (invalidating laws based on animus toward gay persons)
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.) (Fourth Circuit decision striking down a same-sex marriage ban)
Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir.) (Tenth Circuit decision striking down a same-sex marriage ban)
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.) (Tenth Circuit decision striking down a same-sex marriage ban)
Lofton v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir.) (Eleventh Circuit precedent on sexual-orientation classification and adoption statute; acknowledged but distinguished)