799 F.3d 918
8th Cir.2015Background
- Six same-sex couples sued seeking the right to marry in South Dakota or recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages and related state marriage benefits.
- The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declaring South Dakota’s marriage-ban provisions unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and issued a permanent injunction but stayed it pending appeal.
- South Dakota appealed and later argued the case was moot after the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges while the appeal was pending.
- Plaintiffs moved to summarily affirm and to vacate the district court’s stay; South Dakota suggested mootness and moved to vacate the judgment.
- The State conceded the merits post-Obergefell, but had not repealed the challenged statutes and made assurances of compliance; the Eighth Circuit considered whether those assurances or Obergefell rendered the appeal moot or altered appropriate relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do South Dakota laws denying same-sex marriage violate the Constitution? | Laws violate Due Process and Equal Protection by denying fundamental right to marry. | Initially defended the statutes; later conceded after Obergefell. | Affirmed: statutes unconstitutional under Obergefell. |
| Does Obergefell render this appeal moot? | Plaintiffs said Obergefell supports affirmance; case not moot because judgment affects state law and unaddressed collateral issues remain. | SD argued Obergefell moots the appeal and judgment. | Not moot: Obergefell does not automatically moot challenges to state statutes; case affirmed. |
| Do the State’s assurances of compliance moot injunctive relief? | Plaintiffs sought enforcement/judicial resolution beyond assurances. | SD argued voluntary compliance makes relief unnecessary. | Assurances do not meet the heavy burden to moot; district court should consider injunction relief. |
| Should the district court’s stay of the injunction be vacated on appeal? | Plaintiffs requested vacatur of the stay to allow marriages/recognition. | SD opposed vacatur given Obergefell and assurances. | Eighth Circuit left vacatur/stay decision to the district court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (same-sex couples have fundamental right to marry under Due Process and Equal Protection; state bans invalid)
- Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) (previous Eighth Circuit precedent abrogated by Obergefell)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (dismissal on jurisdictional grounds; overruled by Obergefell)
- United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995) (limiting relief to parties before the Court)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary compliance mootness standard — defendant must show wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur)
- United States v. Bailey, 571 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for permanent injunctions and appellate oversight of injunctions)