Diaz v. Brewer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18467
9th Cir.2011Background
- In 2008 Arizona amended Section 101 of Title 2 to include domestic partners in health-benefits eligibility; Prop. 102 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, affecting eligibility rules.
- In 2009 the governor signed HB 2013 redefining “dependents” to include only spouses and certain children, effective Oct. 1, 2009, later set for Jan. 1, 2011.
- Plaintiffs, state employees with domestic partners, enrolled partners and children in state health coverage in 2008-2009 and would lose benefits if Section O took effect.
- Plaintiffs alleged Section O violated equal protection and substantive due process as applied to same-sex couples; district court found likelihood of success on equal protection and irreparable harm.
- District court held the state’s asserted interests (cost savings, administrative efficiency) failed to rationally justify the discriminatory impact; prelim injunction issued.
- Defendants appealed the injunction and argued the district court misapplied standards and that the law has rational economic justifications, among other points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section O violate equal protection by discriminating among couples based on sexual orientation? | Diaz argues Section O discriminates against same-sex couples. | Brewer argues rational basis supports cost/administrative goals. | Yes; not rationally related to legitimate state interests; violates equal protection. |
| Did the district court err in applying the law and assessing state interests while granting the injunction? | Plaintiffs contend district court correctly found no legitimate interests. | Defendants contend district court misread evidence and overstated harms. | District court’s analysis proper; interests not sustained by record. |
| Was it error to deny a bond under Rule 65(c)? | Plaintiffs sought no bond or proper security. | State argued district court should require security. | No error; district court did not abuse discretion in denying bond. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1973) (discriminatory benefits restrictions against an unpopular group invalid under equal protection)
- Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1972) (equal protection analysis; why arbitrary distinctions fail)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (government action based on prejudice against a group fails rational basis review)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (concurring opinion on equal protection and unpopular classifications)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (state official immune from suit for prospective injunctive relief; exceptions apply)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions; likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities)