Jackson v. Abercrombie
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111376
D. Haw.2012Background
- Hawaii amended its Constitution to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples (Art. I, §23).
- Hawaii amended HRS § 572-1 to define marriage as between a man and a woman (pre- Civil Unions era).
- Plaintiffs Natasha N. Jackson and Janin Kleid sought marriage licenses; Gary Bradley entered a civil union.
- Hawaii Family Forum intervened as a defendant (amicus-like defense) and Hawaii Equality/Equality Hawaii filed briefs; Governor Abercrombie and Director Fuddy were named as defendants.
- Civil unions law enacted in 2011, providing same-sex couples rights equivalent to marriage except for the label; 572-1 amended accordingly; civil unions took effect January 2012.
- Court granted HFF’s and Fuddy’s motions for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ motions, and denied Abercrombie’s countermotion as moot; addressed standing and Baker v. Nelson as binding precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abercrombie is a proper party with standing | Abercrombie lacks enforcement control; Eleventh Amendment immunity | Governor has supervisory role; can be named | Abercrombie proper party; standing satisfied. |
| Whether Baker v. Nelson controls this case | Baker no longer binding due to Lawrence/modernity | Baker binds; long-standing rule | Baker remains binding for due process/equal protection here. |
| Whether Hawaii’s marriage laws violate Due Process | Same-sex couples have fundamental right to marry | No fundamental right to same-sex marriage; rational basis applies | Not a fundamental right; rational-basis review applied; laws pass. |
| Whether Hawaii’s marriage laws violate Equal Protection | Sexual orientation discrimination violates EP | Sexual orientation not suspect; rational basis applies; civil unions coexist with marriage | Rational-basis review; laws upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal forecloses substantial federal question (binding))
- Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (prop. 8 narrow holding; unique California facts; not controlling here)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational basis review for sexual orientation classifications)
- Glucksberg v. Washington, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (standard for fundamental rights under due process)
- High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) (sexual orientation not a suspect class; rational basis applicable)
- Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (Hawaii: strict scrutiny for marriage restrictions (historical context))