De Leon v. Perry
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236
W.D. Tex.2014Background
- Two same-sex couples challenge Texas’ ban on marriage: one couple cannot marry in Texas, the other seeks recognition of an out-of-state same-sex marriage.
- The challenged laws include Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution and related Texas Family Code provisions banning same-sex marriage and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
- Defendants include Governor Perry, Attorney General Abbott, County Clerk Rickhoff, and DSHS Commissioner Lakey.
- Texas prohibited same-sex marriage since 1997 (Family Code § 2.001) and barred recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages under § 6.204; Proposition 2 added Section 32 prohibiting both marriage and recognition.
- Plaintiffs allege injuries including denial of state and federal benefits, parental rights, and stigmatic injuries; standing is found based on injury-in-fact and redressability.
- Court applies Windsor (federal same-sex marriage recognition) and analyzes equal protection and due process; preliminary injunction granted, blocking enforcement of Section 32 and related provisions, with a stay pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 32 violate equal protection? | Homosexuals are a suspect/quasi-suspect class; denial lacks rational basis. | Tradition and public policy justify the ban; rational basis review suffices. | Section 32 unconstitutional; likelihood of success on equal protection. |
| Does Section 32 violate due process by denying the right to marry? | Right to marry is fundamental and includes same-sex couples; Texas cannot define marriage to exclude them. | States may regulate marriage; issue is political, not constitutional. | Section 32 violates due process; fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples. |
| Does Texas’ refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages violate due process? | Out-of-state marriages enjoy protections; Texas cannot create a second-tier status. | DOMA § 2 and full faith and credit allow states to deny recognition. | Section 32(b) unconstitutional; recognition of out-of-state marriages must be given; due process violated. |
| Are the plaintiffs' standing and likelihood of irreparable harm satisfied to grant preliminary relief? | Injuries include loss of benefits, parental rights, stigma, and denial of constitutional rights; injuries are concrete and irreparable. | Standing and irreparable harm are not adequately shown. | Standing established; irreparable harm shown; four Winter factors favor injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (federal recognition of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; DOMA §3 unconstitutional)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (fundamental right to marry; due process and equal protection)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (invalidated laws discriminating on sexual orientation; heightened scrutiny context)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (privacy and liberty in intimate relationships; fundamental rights extend to sexual orientation)
- Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (rational basis scrutiny limitations; equal protection context)