Commonwealth, Department of Health v. Hanes
78 A.3d 676
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Department of Health seeks mandamus to compel Clerk of the Orphans’ Court of Montgomery County to enforce Marriage Law provisions.
- Hanes issued licenses to same-sex couples and accepted their certificates, despite statutory restrictions.
- PA Marriage Law defines marriage as one man and one woman; same-sex marriages are challenged as unconstitutional.
- Lawsuit originated from Whitewood v. Corbett in the federal court; Department seeks relief in Commonwealth Court.
- Question presented: whether the Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction, whether Department has standing, and whether constitutionality can be raised as a defense in mandamus.
- Court grants amended Rule 1532(b) relief and issues mandamus directing Hanes to enforce the Marriage Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over the mandamus action. | Hanes is a 'court of inferior jurisdiction' so Supreme Court should hear. | Hanes is a county official, not a judicial officer; Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction. | Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction; Supreme Court lacks original mandamus over Hanes. |
| Whether the Department has standing to sue. | Department has statutory authority to enforce Marriage Law. | Standing must rest with AG, D.A., or private complainant. | Department has standing via Commonwealth Attorneys Act delegation and statutory authority. |
| Whether Hanes could defend the act’s constitutionality in mandamus proceedings. | Constitutionality can be raised as defense to mandate enforcement. | Constitutionality is for courts; mandamus cannot use counterclaims. | Constitutionality cannot be raised as a defense in mandamus; not proper forum. |
| Whether the petition for leave to intervene (Putative Intervenors) should be granted or considered. | Intervenors’ rights may be impacted by judgment; intervention warranted. | Constitutionality defense not at issue; intervention moot. | Intervention and related defenses declined; stay moot. |
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to compel ministerial duty. | Hanes must perform mandatory duties; mandamus is proper. | Some duties may be discretionary; not appropriate to compel unconstitutional acts. | Writ of mandamus proper to compel ministerial duty; summary relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional; state regulation of marriage preserved)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Third School-Dist. of the City of Wilkes-Barre v. James, 135 Pa. 480 (Pa. 1890) (mandamus defense cannot support constitutionality challenge)
- In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 594 Pa. 346 (Pa. 2007) (clerks’ discretion limited; ministerial act principle)
- In re Coats, 849 A.2d 254 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (clerks’ duties are ministerial; no constitutional interpretation power)
- Hetherington v. McHale, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 501 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (limitations on discretionary interpretive power of clerks)
- Minehart, 415 Pa. 305 (Pa. 1964) (mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts)
- Barge v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 39 A.3d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (mandamus availability; ministerial duties)
- Delaware River Port Authority v. Thornburgh, 508 Pa. 11 (Pa. 1985) (mandamus to compel ministerial action; scope of writ)
- Dorris v. Lloyd, (Pa. Supreme Court discussion cited) () (mandamus practice and standing)