Evans v. Utah
21 F. Supp. 3d 1192
D. Utah2014Background
- Four same-sex couples married in Utah between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014 sue to challenge Utah’s marriage bans and seek recognition of their marriages.
- Kitchen v. Herbert (D. Utah) enjoined Utah from enforcing its marriage bans on December 20, 2013; stay orders followed, including a January 6, 2014 Stay by the Supreme Court.
- Utah issued over 1,300 marriage licenses to same-sex couples during the initial window; after the Stay, Utah treated those marriages as non-recognized for most purposes.
- Plaintiffs allege deprivations of property and liberty interests, including issues with adoption, health care, inheritance, and benefits due to non-recognition.
- Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to require Utah to recognize their marriages; Utah moves to certify questions of state law to the Utah Supreme Court.
- The court grants the preliminary injunction to recognize the December 20, 2013–January 6, 2014 marriages while denying certification of state-law questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits? | Evans/other plaintiffs have vested due process rights in their marriages. | State may apply bans retroactively without violating due process. | Yes; plaintiffs show likelihood of success on federal due process and liberty interests. |
| Is retroactive application of Utah’s marriage bans unconstitutional as to vested rights? | Marriages were vested when solemnized; retroactive bans harm entitlements. | State may apply laws retroactively where supported by policy or politics. | Yes; retroactive application here violates due process and undermines vested rights. |
| Do plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm without injunction? | Recognition affects adoption, custody, health care, and benefits; harms accrue daily. | Some harm exists but not irreparable or outweighed by state interests. | Yes; irreparable harm shown due to ongoing rights deprivations. |
| Do the balance of harms and public interest favor preliminary relief? | Constitutional rights outweigh state enforcement concerns; certainty benefits many parties. | State interests in applying current law and respecting voters’ wishes. | Balance and public interest favor plaintiffs; injunction granted. |
| Whether the court should certify Utah state-law questions to the Utah Supreme Court? | State-law questions about vested rights are important and unsettled. | Certifying is unnecessary; Utah law is clear on vesting, and certification is a delay tactic. | No; certification denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (due process protects the liberty interest in marriage)
- Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364 (Cal. 2009) (retroactivity and vested rights in marriage; Prop. 8 analysis)
- Waddoups v. Noorda, 2013 UT 64 (Utah 2013) (present-tense language not retroactive on events past)
- Cook v. Cook, 209 Ariz. 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (vested rights in out-of-state marriages; retroactivity context)
- In re J.P., 648 P.2d 1364 (Utah 1982) (fundamental rights in family relationships)