Deboer v. Snyder
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a long-term same-sex couple and foster/adoptive parents in Michigan, challenged Michigan Constitutional Art. I, § 25 (the Michigan Marriage Amendment, "MMA") which limits marriage to one man and one woman.
- Plaintiffs initially sued to allow joint adoption; the court invited amendment to challenge the MMA after finding the adoption injury traceable to the marriage ban.
- The trial was limited to whether the MMA survives rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs presented social-science and legal experts who testified that (a) empirical evidence shows no meaningful disadvantage to children raised by same-sex parents and (b) the MMA destabilizes existing same-sex families by denying legal protections (e.g., automatic parental rights, streamlined guardianship/adoption).
- State defendants argued rational bases for the MMA: optimal child-rearing by heterosexual married couples, proceeding with caution, tradition/morality, and states’ authority over domestic relations; they relied on a small set of studies (notably Regnerus and Allen).
- The district court found plaintiffs’ experts credible, discredited key state experts (especially Regnerus), concluded the MMA does not advance any conceivable legitimate state interest under rational basis review, and enjoined enforcement of Art. I, § 25 and implementing statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Michigan Marriage Amendment violates Equal Protection | MMA irrationally discriminates against same-sex couples and their children; no legitimate state interest justifies exclusion | MMA rationally furthers child welfare, tradition, caution, and state authority over marriage | Court: MMA fails even rational basis review; unconstitutional and enjoined |
| Whether empirical evidence supports excluding same-sex couples to promote optimal child-rearing | Social-science consensus: no meaningful difference in child outcomes; marriage recognition benefits family stability | Some studies (Regnerus, Allen) show worse outcomes for children linked to parental same-sex relationships | Court: plaintiff experts credible; state studies flawed; no rational link between ban and child welfare |
| Whether "proceed with caution" or lack of conclusive evidence justifies the ban | Constitutional protections cannot be postponed; delay harms families now | State may wait for more data before redefining marriage | Court: "wait-and-see" is insufficient under rational basis when fundamental rights or equal protection implicated |
| Whether tradition, morality, or state/domestic-relations authority justify the MMA | Traditions and moral disapproval cannot override constitutional guarantees; Windsor and Loving limit state power | Defendants: defining marriage is state prerogative and voter-approved amendment warrants deference | Court: tradition/morality inadequate; state authority constrained by constitutional rights; voter passage provides no immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (federal DOMA §3 held unconstitutional; recognition of state role in marriage but subject to constitutional limits)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (struck down race-based marriage bans; state domestic-relations power limited by Constitution)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (law singling out gay persons for disfavored treatment invalidated under Equal Protection)
- Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (Equal Protection principle that like persons should be treated alike; framework for review)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal of same-sex marriage claim; court held later doctrinal developments have eroded its precedential weight)