Garden State Equality v. Dow
434 N.J. Super. 163
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Garden State Equality and six same-sex couples) moved for summary judgment asking the court to require New Jersey to permit same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds under the New Jersey Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
- New Jersey previously complied with Lewis v. Harris by creating the Civil Union Act, which provides same-sex couples substantially all rights of marriage but with a different label.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor (2013) invalidated Section 3 of DOMA, multiple federal agencies limited post‑Windsor federal benefits to legally married couples and excluded state-designated civil unions.
- Plaintiffs argued Windsor transformed the label “civil union” into a constitutionally significant deprivation because civil union partners now lack many federal benefits available to married couples.
- The State argued plaintiffs’ claims were unripe and that any deprivation stemmed from federal action (not state action), and urged deference/awaiting further federal administrative or legislative developments.
- The court held the claims were ripe, plaintiffs had standing, state action existed (the creation of civil unions), and that under Lewis + Windsor the Civil Union Act’s exclusion of marriage now violated Article I, ¶1 of the New Jersey Constitution; the court granted summary judgment requiring New Jersey to allow same-sex marriage (effective Oct. 21, 2013) and dismissed the federal claim as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / Hardship | Windsor and immediate federal agency policies already deny civil union partners federal benefits; legal question fits judicial resolution and withholding review causes ongoing harm. | Many federal agencies have not finalized implementation; decision is premature and should await administrative/legislative developments. | Claims ripe: several agencies had already excluded civil unions; withholding review would impose continuing constitutional harm. |
| Standing | Plaintiffs (including Garden State Equality) suffer concrete harms from denial of federal benefits and have associational + individual standing. | Plaintiffs have not yet been denied specific federal benefits; standing speculative. | Plaintiffs have sufficient stake and associational affidavits show concrete injury; standing satisfied. |
| State action | The State created the civil-union label that directly causes plaintiffs’ ineligibility for federal benefits; enactment of statute is state action. | Any deprivation arises from federal agencies’ decisions post-Windsor — injury attributable to federal, not state, action. | State action exists: legislature’s creation of a civil-union/marriage dichotomy is state action subject to equal protection review. |
| Merits under New Jersey Constitution (Lewis) | Post‑Windsor, civil unions no longer secure equal access to all marriage benefits; Lewis requires that same-sex couples receive all rights and benefits on equal terms, so New Jersey must permit same‑sex marriage. | Lewis permitted a parallel structure; Windsor requires federal deference to state definitions and federal agencies should treat civil unions as equivalent. | Applying Lewis in light of Windsor, the civil-union/marriage split now denies equal protection under Article I, ¶1; State must permit same-sex marriage. Federal equal protection claim dismissed as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (invalidating DOMA §3 and holding federal government must recognize state-law marriages for federal benefits)
- Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006) (New Jersey Supreme Court: same-sex couples must receive all rights and benefits of marriage; Legislature may create marriage or a parallel scheme)
- Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972) (state-action requirement for Fourteenth Amendment claims)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (statutory procedures created by the state can constitute state action)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (separate-but-equal state-created institutions must be genuinely equal; Supreme Court may reject parallel structures that are unequal)