Diaz v. Brewer
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6623
9th Cir.2012Background
- Arizona extended state-employee health benefits to qualified domestic partners in 2008; Section O in 2009 narrowed benefits to spouses only.
- Section O applied to both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners but effectively discriminated since same-sex couples could not marry under Arizona’s constitution.
- Gay and lesbian state employees challenged Section O as violating equal protection and due process; district court preliminarily enjoined it.
- Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the injunction, holding Section O irrational under rational basis review due to its disparate impact on a protected class.
- This dissent argues the panel misapplied equal protection and rational basis standards and should have denied rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection requires discriminatory purpose as well as effect | DIAZ et al. show discriminatory purpose via impact | BREWER et al. argue impact suffices under rational basis | Panel erred; no proven discriminatory intent or purpose established |
| Section O must meet rational basis review | Costs savings do not justify impact on gays | Cost savings provide rational basis | Panel erred; rational basis supported by cost-savings rationale |
| Impact analysis cannot substitute for discriminatory intent under Equal Protection | Disparate impact alone invalidates Section O | Disparate impact insufficient without intent | Panel erred; impact alone not enough under controlling law |
| Traditional-marriage protections can be rationally related to legitimate state interests | Traditional-marriage laws are irrational per se | Promoting traditional marriage can be rational | Panel’s broad rejection of traditional-marriage protections conflicts with precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) (discriminatory purpose required for invalidation under equal protection)
- Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (discriminatory purpose required; impact insufficient)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (intent required for equal protection violation; not just impact)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational basis review requires legitimate justification; hostility cannot be sole motivation)
- Rom. v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (see Romer v. Evans)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (burden to negate all conceivable bases under rational basis)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (recognizes traditional marriage decisions within constitutional framework)
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) (recognition of traditional marriage protections in federal context)