Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Marion Circuit Court Clerk
758 F.3d 869
7th Cir.2014Background
- Indiana codifies authorized wedding celebrants, listing clergy, judges, mayors, clerks, and several religious groups, but excludes secular humanists.
- Center for Inquiry (a secular humanist group) and its leader Reba Boyd Wooden challenge the statute under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming First Amendment neutrality and equal protection violations.
- District Court denies injunction; upholds statute as accommodating religion while discriminating against nonreligious groups.
- Plaintiffs argue the statute irrationally favorites religious practice and discriminates among beliefs that function equivalently in adherents’ lives.
- Court considers whether neutrality and equal protection require treating secular humanism the same as religion for solemnization of marriages.
- Opinion ultimately holds Indiana’s statute unconstitutional as applied, reversing and remanding to grant an injunction allowing secular humanist celebrants to solemnize marriages with legal effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the statute violate the First Amendment neutrality principle? | Humanists deserve neutral treatment like religions. | Accommodations to religion are permissible without extending to secular beliefs. | Yes; statute violates neutrality and equal protection |
| Is there an equal protection violation by privileging some beliefs over others? | Discriminates among ethical codes that function like religion in society. | Accommodations are rational and historically rooted. | Yes; discrimination among beliefs is unconstitutional |
| Can private secular celebrants be excluded from solemnization while religious figures are included? | Exclusion harms nonreligious groups with equivalent moral systems. | Accommodations depend on organizational structure defining clergy. | No; exclusion cannot be justified by such distinctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1983) (government may support religious viewpoints in some contexts without extending to secular groups in private conduct)
- Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (U.S. 2014) (prayer practices context; not controlling for private solemnization)
- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1961) (secular beliefs must be treated the same as religious beliefs for neutrality)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1982) (state cannot favor denominational groups over others in accommodation)
- Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1970) (moral systems must be treated the same as religious beliefs for conscientious objection)
- United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1965) (secular beliefs with moral significance akin to religion receive protection)
- Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005) (accommodations in prisons must treat atheism as favorably as religious belief)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (U.S. 2012) (recognition of clergy defined by religious organization itself)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (context of government speech and private conduct considerations)