Latta v. Otter
19 F. Supp. 3d 1054
D. Idaho2014Background
- Four same-sex couples sue Idaho officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Idaho's marriage laws as unconstitutional.
- Idaho prohibits same-sex marriage and recognizes out-of-state marriages only if not same-sex, imposing a two-tier system.
- Key provisions: Idaho Code § 32-201 defines marriage as between a man and a woman; § 32-209 restricts out-of-state marriages; Idaho Constitution Art. III, § 28 bans recognizing same-sex unions.
- Plaintiffs seek declaration that Idaho’s laws violate due process and equal protection and an injunction against enforcement.
- Amendment 2 (2006) inserted a constitutional provision restricting recognition of marriages to opposite-sex couples, reinforcing the state policy.
- Defendants include Governor Otter and Ada County Recorder Rich; the state intervened to defend the challenged laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Idaho’s marriage laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment? | Latta/others: fundamental right to marry; classifications based on sexual orientation presumptively unconstitutional. | Otter/State: tradition and policy interests justify restrictions; no fundamental right applicable to same-sex couples. | Yes; laws fail due process and equal protection. |
| Is Baker v. Nelson controlling post-Windsor? | Windsor undermines Baker's preclusion of merit review. | Baker remains binding precedent. | Baker not controlling; post-Windsor developments override. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to sexual orientation discrimination here? | Heightened scrutiny under Windsor SmithKline. | Rational basis suffices; no suspect class. | Heightened scrutiny applies; law fails. |
| Do child-welfare rationales justify Idaho’s laws? | Child welfare does not justify exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. | Protects children and supports stable families. | Rational links found insufficient; not narrowly tailored. |
| Does federalism save Idaho’s marriage policy? | Constitutional rights trump state traditions; Windsor controls. | States may define marriage; federalism supports local policy. | Federalism does not permit violation of constitutional rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (struck down federal marriage definition; heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (fundamental right to marry transcends race)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (right to marry protected despite child-support restrictions)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (marriage rights cannot be wholly denied by prison regulations)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (sexual orientation protected; autonomy in intimate decisions)
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1986) (overruled; earlier view on sexual orientation as basis for limitation)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (U.S. 1972) (summary dismissal; inferior precedential value now treated as limited)
- SmithKline Beckman Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014) (heightened scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation; Windsor impact)