Gray v. Orr
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171473
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Vernita Gray (terminally ill) and Patricia Ewert, long-term same-sex partners who entered a civil union in Illinois, sought a marriage license in Cook County before Illinois’s new same-sex marriage law becomes effective on June 1, 2014.
- Illinois law then prohibited same-sex marriage (750 ILCS 5/212(a)(5)), but the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 10 on Nov. 5, 2013, signed Nov. 20, 2013, which permits same-sex marriage effective June 1, 2014.
- Because Gray is likely to die before June 1, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction directing Cook County Clerk David Orr to issue a marriage license and register their marriage.
- The Illinois Attorney General declined to defend the existing prohibition as applied to these Plaintiffs and supported injunctive relief; Clerk Orr said he would issue a license only if ordered by a court.
- The district court treated facts as true for TRO purposes, found Plaintiffs had demonstrable irreparable harm and no adequate legal remedy, and concluded Plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success on an as-applied Equal Protection challenge to warrant temporary injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Gray and Ewert face a concrete, redressable injury because Clerk Orr refuses to issue a license under current law | Prudential concerns because the AG will not defend the law | Court: Article III standing exists despite AG’s position; justiciable controversy present |
| Likelihood of success on as-applied Equal Protection | The prohibition discriminates based on sexual orientation and cannot survive scrutiny given legislative enactment allowing same-sex marriage | Clerk Orr raises statutory constraint; State (AG) agrees discrimination cannot be defended as applied | Court: Plaintiffs have some likelihood of success on merits (plausible as-applied Equal Protection claim) |
| Irreparable harm / adequate remedy at law | Denial prevents access to state marriage benefits (federal benefits, tax, survivor benefits) and intangible dignity; Gray may die before law’s effective date | Harm to State or Clerk from brief early issuance is minimal | Court: Irreparable harm shown; no adequate legal remedy exists |
| Balance of equities / public interest | Harm to Plaintiffs outweighs any minor harm to State; AG says public interest supports relief | Clerk Orr argues must follow existing law until effective date absent court order | Court: Balance and public interest favor temporary relief limited to Gray and Ewert |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (preliminary-injunction standard and equitable balancing)
- Cavel Int’l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2007) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunctions)
- Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2009) (strength of merits affects required showing for injunction)
- Storck USA, L.P. v. Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 1994) (initial requirement of some likelihood of success for injunctive relief)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements)
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (federal DOMA invalidation; animus and equal protection/due process analysis)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (principles regarding governmental position and judicial relief)
- Long v. Bd. of Educ., Dist. 128, 167 F. Supp. 2d 988 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (TRO and preliminary injunction standards are identical)