Henderson v. Adams
209 F. Supp. 3d 1059
S.D. Ind.2016Background
- Multiple married female same-sex couples in Indiana gave birth via assisted reproduction; birth certificates listed only the birth mother, not the non-birth spouse, and children were treated as "born out of wedlock."
- Plaintiffs sued state and county health officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to have both spouses listed on birth certificates and for children to be recognized as "born in wedlock," and challenged Indiana Code §§ 31-9-2-15, 31-9-2-16, and 31-14-7-1 as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
- County defendants produce birth certificates under a state-controlled electronic system (ISDH); court found counties lacked authority to alter state-prescribed records and dismissed claims against county defendants for lack of standing/jurisdiction.
- The core legal dispute concerned whether Indiana’s parentage/legitimacy statutes and the State’s implementation discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation by presuming parenthood for a husband but not for a female spouse.
- The district court applied heightened (intermediate) scrutiny for Equal Protection (gender and sexual-orientation classifications) and also held the statutes implicate fundamental parental rights under Due Process; it ruled for Plaintiffs and enjoined the State from enforcing the statutes in a way that precludes presumption of parenthood for female same-sex spouses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of county defendants | County issuance of certificates caused injury; injunction against counties would redress harm | Counties merely follow ISDH rules; they lack discretion so plaintiffs lack standing against counties | Counties lack standing; claims vs. county defendants dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Equal Protection — parentage presumption | Indiana grants a presumption of parenthood to husbands but denies same presumption to female spouses, discriminating on sex and sexual orientation | Statutes serve important interests in preserving biological fathers' rights and accurate records; apply equally in function | Statutes and their implementation violate Equal Protection; benefit of marital presumption must extend to same-sex spouses |
| Due Process — parental rights | Denial of presumption substantially interferes with fundamental right to parent; strict scrutiny required | No fundamental right to become a parent; rational basis applies; statutes constitutional | Denial infringes fundamental parental liberty; statutes not narrowly tailored; violation of Due Process |
| Remedy — injunctive/declaratory relief | Plaintiffs seek permanent injunction to require presumption and recognition on birth certificates | State contends statutory solution belongs to legislature; changes would burden state system | Court granted declaratory judgment and permanent injunction ordering State to apply parenthood presumption and recognize children as born in wedlock for same-sex married couples |
Key Cases Cited
- Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014) (recognition that benefits of marriage must be extended to same-sex couples under federal constitutional principles)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (marriage guarantees equal dignity and entitles same-sex couples to benefits traditionally tied to marriage)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental right to make decisions concerning the care of their children is a constitutionally protected liberty interest)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (when a statutory classification significantly interferes with a fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (constitutional protection for personal decisions relating to family and intimate choices)