Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks v. Mayor Sylvester Turner and City of Houston
538 S.W.3d 73
| Tex. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Mayor Annise Parker directed Houston HR to extend city-employee benefits to same-sex spouses legally married in other jurisdictions, based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Windsor). Petitioners Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks sued, alleging the directive violated Texas and Houston "DOMA" provisions and sought injunction and damages.
- The trial court denied the City and Mayor's pleas to the jurisdiction and issued a temporary injunction preventing the City from furnishing benefits to same-sex spouses of City employees.
- While the City's interlocutory appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, holding states cannot exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage or refuse recognition of lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages.
- The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's temporary injunction and remanded for further proceedings "consistent with Obergefell and De Leon." Petitioners sought review in the Texas Supreme Court, arguing the phrase "consistent with De Leon" could wrongly bind the trial court to Fifth Circuit precedent, among other objections.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review, concluded it had jurisdiction because the court of appeals' language risked creating confusion, reversed the court of appeals, vacated the trial court's temporary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pidgeon) | Defendant's Argument (Mayor/City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals improperly required the trial court to proceed "consistent with" De Leon | "Consistent with" could be read as making De Leon (5th Cir.) binding on the state trial court; De Leon is not binding | Court of appeals only meant De Leon is persuasive; trial court may consider it | The phrase could create uncertainty; De Leon is not binding on Texas trial courts though it may be persuasive. |
| Whether reversal (vs. vacatur/dissolution) of the temporary injunction precludes renewed relief on remand | Reversal might have res judicata effect and bar seeking similar relief on remand | Reversal is proper procedural relief under appellate rules when law changed | Change in law (Obergefell) justified dissolution; reversal does not bar the plaintiff from seeking appropriate relief on remand. |
| Whether plaintiff can obtain retrospective "claw-back" relief for benefits paid pre-Obergefell and whether Obergefell applies retroactively | Obergefell is a change in constitutional interpretation, not restoration of original meaning; thus not retroactive—City lacked authority pre-Obergefell and must disgorge funds | Plaintiff lacks standing for retrospective relief as a taxpayer and may lack ability to force recovery of spent funds | Court declined to decide: plaintiff never requested claw-back via the injunction and trial court never granted it; standing and retroactivity issues left for remand. |
| Whether trial court should be instructed to narrowly construe Obergefell on remand or how Obergefell affects public benefits | Obergefell should be applied narrowly—requires licensing/recognition but not taxpayer-funded spousal benefits | Obergefell and Windsor protect married same-sex couples' access to the constellation of benefits linked to marriage; courts must treat Obergefell as controlling | Court refused to direct a narrow construction of Obergefell; Obergefell controls licensing/recognition but its specific effect on public benefits is unresolved and must be litigated on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (states may not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage or refuse recognition of lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages)
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (federal DOMA definitions violated due process and equal protection principles as applied by the Federal Government)
- De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015) (Fifth Circuit affirmed federal injunction that Texas DOMAs violate federal Constitution; persuasive but not binding on Texas courts)
- Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. 1993) (state courts are not bound by federal circuit precedent; they may consider it persuasively)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires suits may be brought against officers in their official capacity despite governmental immunity)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (standing and religious-liberty issues in challenges to government regulation; discussed by parties regarding taxpayer injury)