Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant
64 F. Supp. 3d 906
S.D. Miss.2014Background
- Plaintiffs are two same-sex couples (Becky & Andrea; Joce & Carla) and Campaign for Southern Equality suing on behalf of Mississippi members seeking relief against Mississippi’s same-sex marriage ban.
- Mississippi bans same-sex marriage via Miss. Code Ann. §93-1-1(2) and Miss. Const. art. XIV, §263A, and the defendants are state executives and a circuit clerk.
- Plaintiffs challenge the ban as violating the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection).
- There are no disputed facts; the record consists of uncontested affidavits; the court must decide legal questions.
- Court surveys historical context and post-Windsor landscape, concluding the ban is unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Mississippi’s same-sex marriage ban violate the Fourteenth Amendment? | Ban harms equal dignity and privacy rights of gay couples and families. | Tradition and democratic processes justify the ban. | Yes; ban violates both Due Process and Equal Protection. |
| Do plaintiffs have standing to sue in federal court? | Becky & Andrea, Joce & Carla suffer concrete and stigmatic harms; CSE represents members. | Standing insufficient or limited. | All plaintiffs have standing (and CSE has associational standing). |
| Is Baker v. Nelson still controlling authority post-Windsor? | Baker is preempted by modern anti-discrimination doctrine. | Baker remains binding precedent. | Baker is effectively superseded; merits may be considered. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to Mississippi’s sexual orientation classifications? | Sexual orientation deserves heightened scrutiny given history of discrimination. | Classification is sex-based; intermediate scrutiny may apply. | Intermediate scrutiny applicable; yet even under rational basis, ban fails. |
| Is the ban rationally related to any legitimate state interest? | No rational link; harms children and families, and stigma persists. | Interests include procreation, tradition, and democratic process. | Under rational basis, the ban fails; unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (fundamental right to marry applies broadly to all couples)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (liberty includes autonomy for intimate decisions, including marriage for homosexuals)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (DOMA unconstitutional; harms to same-sex families)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal; not controlling after Windsor)
- Glucksberg v. Connecticut, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (due process limits on fundamental rights; strict scrutiny when applicable)