Latta v. Otter
771 F.3d 456
9th Cir.2014Background
- Idaho and Nevada prohibit same-sex marriage and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
- Plaintiffs are same-sex couples in Idaho/Nevada seeking marriage or recognition of same-sex marriages.
- District courts diverged on scrutiny: rational basis pre-SmithKline; heightened scrutiny post-SmithKline.
- Latta v. Otter struck down Idaho’s ban; Sevcik v. Sandoval struck down Nevada’s ban.
- The court affirms Latta, reverses Sevcik, and remands for injunction against enforcing bans and recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ban violate equal protection under heightened scrutiny? | Latta/Sevcik allege discrimination based on sexual orientation. | Laws serve procreative/child-welfare aims justifying discrimination. | Yes; bans violate Equal Protection under heightened scrutiny. |
| Are the bans facially discriminatory on the basis of gender? | Bans privilege opposite-sex couples, exclude same-sex couples by gender. | Discrimination arises from sexual orientation, not gender. | Yes; bans are gender classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny. |
| Do gender-based classifications fail to serve substantial governmental objectives? | Gender stereotypes lack substantial support for child welfare/family stability claims. | Laws promote child welfare via gendered parenting norms. | Yes; stereotypes do not satisfy intermediate scrutiny. |
| Is exclusion of same-sex marriages irreconcilable with evolving marriage norms? | Marital rights should extend to all consenting adults regardless of sex. | Tradition and social purposes justify opposite-sex marriage only. | Yes; exclusion unconstitutional given evolving doctrine on equality. |
| Do the bans' practical effects justify the classifications? | Discrimination harms families and undermines equality. | State interest in promoting traditional marriage supports bans. | No; no substantial relation to legitimate objectives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (invalidated racial classifications in marriage; foundation for universal right to marry)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (fundamental right to marry includes broad liberty interests)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (right to intimate, private conduct; fundamental rights extending to marriage scope)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (struck down federal defense of marriage based on inequality; heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (2014) (sexual orientation classifications require heightened scrutiny)
- Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (2014) (circuit court applying heightened scrutiny to same-sex marriage bans)