818 F.3d 765
1st Cir.2016Background
- Petitioners (same-sex couples and advocacy groups) challenged Puerto Rico laws including Article 68 of the Civil Code that barred same-sex marriage.
- While an earlier appeal from dismissal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, holding same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.
- After Obergefell, the parties agreed Puerto Rico’s ban was unconstitutional and this court vacated and remanded with instruction to consider Obergefell.
- On remand the district court declined to enter judgment for Petitioners, ruling the constitutional right announced in Obergefell did not apply in Puerto Rico and declined to enter final judgment.
- Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus from the First Circuit to compel the district court to comply with the prior mandate and enter judgment striking down the ban; Respondents moved to join the petition.
- The First Circuit granted the petition, allowed Respondents to join, and ordered reassignment to a different judge to enter judgment for Petitioners and complete further proceedings as necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Puerto Rico’s same-sex marriage ban is constitutional | Ban violates due process and equal protection as defined in Obergefell and Windsor | District court: Obergefell’s right to same-sex marriage has not been determined to apply in Puerto Rico | First Circuit: Ban is unconstitutional under Obergefell; mandate must be implemented and judgment entered for Petitioners |
| Whether the district court was bound by this court’s prior mandate to apply Obergefell | Mandate and parties’ joint position required vacatur and remand to enter judgment in favor of Petitioners | District court interpreted mandate narrowly and concluded it could refuse to apply Obergefell in Puerto Rico | First Circuit: District court misconstrued and defied the mandate; mandamus appropriate to enforce compliance |
| Appropriateness of mandamus to compel district-court action | Mandamus proper to avoid relitigation of decided issues and to effectuate mandate | District court’s procedural posture did not preclude ordinary appeal | First Circuit: Mandamus is appropriate where lower court refuses to give effect to appellate mandate |
| Whether lower court must enter final judgment to allow ordinary appeal | Petitioners sought prompt final judgment per the mandate | District court declined to enter final judgment, signaling uncertainty | First Circuit: Ordered district court (reassigned) to enter judgment for Petitioners promptly |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (same-sex marriage bans violate due process and equal protection)
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (federal recognition of lawful same-sex marriages under Fifth Amendment equal protection principles)
- Examining Bd. of Eng'rs, Architects & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976) (discusses applicability and incorporation of constitutional rights in Puerto Rico)
- United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of N.Y., 334 U.S. 258 (1948) (mandamus may enforce compliance with higher-court mandates)
- City Nat. Bank of Ft. Worth v. Hunter, 152 U.S. 512 (1894) (mandamus appropriate to enforce appellate mandate)
- Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781 (1929) (lower courts can be controlled by higher courts when they misconstrue appellate mandates)
- Dep't of Navy v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 835 F.2d 921 (1st Cir. 1987) (mandamus appropriate to compel effectuation of an appellate mandate)