Henry v. Himes
14 F. Supp. 3d 1036
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Four same-sex couples married in other states (three female couples expecting children via anonymous donor insemination; one male couple with an Ohio-born adopted son) sought Ohio birth certificates listing both spouses as parents and recognition of out-of-state adoption decrees.
- Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01(C) and Ohio Const. Art. XV, § 11 (adopted 2004) bar recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and disallow any equivalent legal status in Ohio.
- The Department of Health (Defendant Himes) refused to amend Ohio birth certificates to list both same-sex spouses or to give effect to out-of-state adoption decrees for same-sex couples.
- Plaintiffs moved for declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction declaring Ohio’s marriage-recognition bans unconstitutional and ordering issuance of accurate birth certificates and recognition of out-of-state adoption decrees.
- The court relied on its prior Obergefell v. Wymyslo analysis and post-Windsor federal decisions, finding the record devoid of a legitimate justification for Ohio’s discriminatory treatment and concluding the bans are facially unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio’s marriage-recognition provisions violate Due Process by denying fundamental marriage/family rights | Ohio: refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages deprives couples of fundamental rights (right to marry, remain married, parental autonomy) | State: interest in preserving traditional marriage, uniform state definition, deference to legislative function | Held unconstitutional: bans deprive fundamental liberty interests without sufficient state justification (due process violated) |
| Whether the statutes violate Equal Protection by singling out same-sex couples | Ohio’s ban intentionally discriminates and stigmatizes same-sex married couples and their children and lacks an adequate governmental purpose | State: defending traditional definition of marriage and policy choice of Ohio voters | Held unconstitutional: classification based on sexual orientation fails heightened scrutiny (and fails rational-basis if applied) |
| Whether out-of-state adoption decrees must be given effect (Full Faith and Credit) | Plaintiffs: adoption decrees are judgments entitled to recognition; Department must issue amended birth certificates under Ohio law | State: contends public-policy exception could bar recognizing adoptions not allowable under Ohio law | Held for plaintiffs Vitale/Talmas: Full Faith and Credit requires recognition of duly issued out-of-state adoption decrees; Himes must issue amended birth certificate |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief (and irreparable harm) | Constitutional violations cause ongoing irreparable harm (stigmatization, legal disability for children and parents); birth certificates critical documents | State: potential injury to state interests and deference to legislative policy | Held: Plaintiffs entitled to declaratory judgment and permanent injunction; defendants enjoined from enforcing ban and must issue birth certificates listing both parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968 (S.D. Ohio 2014) (prior district-court decision analyzing Ohio’s recognition ban and applied here)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (invalidating federal nonrecognition of same-sex marriages and reasoning used to require heightened scrutiny)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (Equal Protection: laws singling out a class for disfavored treatment are unconstitutional)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Due Process: liberty interest protects intimate relationships of consenting adults)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (Due Process/Equal Protection: freedom to marry is a fundamental right)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (facial vs. as-applied challenge principles; breadth of remedy)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) (Full Faith and Credit Clause principles distinguishing judgments from public acts)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (marriage-related restrictions implicate fundamental rights and trigger heightened review)