Doe v. State
27728
| S.C. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Jane Doe, an unmarried woman in a former same-sex relationship, sought a family-court Order of Protection after alleged assault and harassment by her ex-fiancé; the family court denied relief citing the statutory definition of “household member.”
- South Carolina statutes at issue (S.C. Code § 16-25-10(3) and § 20-4-20(b)) define "household member" to include "a male and female who are cohabiting or formerly have cohabited," among other categories.
- Doe filed for a declaratory judgment in the South Carolina Supreme Court challenging the definition as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Due Process) because it excludes unmarried same-sex cohabitants.
- The State argued the Court could construe or sever the language (change "and" to "or" or remove the phrase) to preserve the statutes; it also suggested delaying any invalidation to allow legislative correction.
- The Supreme Court held the definition unconstitutional as applied to Doe (an as-applied challenge), concluding the statutory phrasing treats similarly situated unmarried same-sex cohabitants differently without a rational basis, and therefore violative of equal protection; the family court may not rely on those provisions to bar Doe from seeking an Order of Protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory definition of "household member" is facially or as-applied unconstitutional for excluding unmarried same-sex cohabitants | Doe: definition discriminates based on sexual orientation and denies same remedies as opposite-sex cohabitants; seeks inclusion or recharacterization of "and" as "or" | State: Court should construe or sever the language to preserve the statute; alternatively delay invalidation to let Legislature amend | Court: Statute is not facially invalid (has many valid applications) but is unconstitutional as applied to Doe |
| Whether the statutory classification violates Equal Protection | Doe: similarly situated opposite-sex cohabitants receive protection; exclusion lacks rational basis | State: legislative purpose targets predominant patterns of opposite-sex domestic violence; interpretation or severance can cure issue | Court: Classification fails rational basis — no reasonable relation to legislative purpose; treats same-sex cohabitants disparately without rational basis |
| Appropriate remedy (construction, severance, or invalidation) | Doe: judicial construction to include unmarried same-sex couples (interpret "and" as "or") | State: judicial construction or severance to preserve Act; if struck, delay remedy | Court: Refused to rewrite or sever language; declared those statutory provisions unconstitutional as applied to Doe but declined to invalidate Acts in whole |
| Justiciability / original jurisdiction | Doe asserted a live controversy; sought original relief after family court denial | State (in parts) and dissent argued parties agreed statute covers Doe so no controversy; procedural objections | Court exercised original jurisdiction, found controversy justiciable and proceeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. State, 338 S.C. 634 (1999) (presumption of constitutionality; statutes construed to uphold validity when possible)
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (facial vs. as-applied challenge framework and breadth of remedy)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standard for successful facial constitutional challenge requires showing no set of circumstances under which statute is valid)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (recognition that same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection and related fundamental rights)
- Travelscape, L.L.C. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 391 S.C. 89 (2010) (as-applied v. facial challenge distinction; preference for as-applied relief when statute has valid applications)