Marie v. Mosier, 196 F. Supp. 3d 1202

Background

Plaintiffs (same-sex couples) sued Kansas officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (filed Oct 2014), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating Kansas provisions that barred recognition/issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The court granted a preliminary injunction (Nov 2014) forbidding enforcement of Kansas laws against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, later analyzed post-Obergefell (June 2015) for final relief.
On Aug 10, 2015 the court issued a declaratory judgment holding Kansas laws invalid under Obergefell but deferred a permanent injunction under prudential mootness to assess defendants’ voluntary compliance and reliability of remedial assurances.
Supplemental filings revealed widespread agency changes but also two incidents where the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) initially refused to list same-sex spouses as parents on birth certificates for children conceived via assisted reproduction, requiring state-court action.
The court reexamined mootness (in light of Brown v. Buhman) and prudential considerations, found defendants’ assurances insufficiently reliable, and concluded declaratory relief plus a permanent injunction were warranted to prevent recurrence of unequal treatment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Obergefell moots this case	Obergefell does not automatically moot plaintiffs’ claims because defendants’ voluntary compliance may be unreliable	Obergefell renders plaintiffs’ claims moot; no live controversy remains	Not moot; the court applied Brown standards and found a continuing controversy given evidence of inconsistent compliance
Whether voluntary remedial assurances justify withholding a permanent injunction (prudential mootness)	KDHE’s post-Obergefell refusals to treat same-sex parents equally show assurances are unreliable and risk recurrence	Defendants promised and implemented changes; voluntary compliance suffices and injunction unnecessary	Prudential mootness does not bar relief; assurances were not sufficiently reliable to avoid injunction
Whether a permanent injunction is appropriate	Needed to prevent irreparable harm and ensure equal treatment across agencies (birth certificates, licenses, benefits)	Injunction unnecessary and would overreach; some asserted provisions not challenged	Permanent injunction granted: defendants enjoined from enforcing laws/policies denying same-sex couples marriage licenses or treating them differently regarding marriage rights/benefits
Scope and duration of relief	Plaintiffs sought broad injunction against any Kansas law/policy excluding same-sex couples from marriage	Defendants argued injunction including certain constitutional provisions would exceed merits and cause harm	Court entered broad injunction (including Art. 15 §16, Kan. Stat. §§ 23-2501, 23-2508) and retained jurisdiction for 3 years

Key Cases Cited

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (holding state laws banning same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment)
Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (voluntary cessation/mootness: formal nonprosecution policy can render a case moot if recurrence is not reasonably expected)
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) (voluntary cessation and considerations for prudential mootness)
Winzler v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 681 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2012) (reliability of remedial assurances depends on who makes them and past reliability)
Fisher v. Okla. Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2003) (elements required for permanent injunction)
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) (affirming permanent injunction against state same-sex marriage ban)
Waters v. Ricketts, 159 F. Supp. 3d 992 (D. Neb. 2016) (post-Obergefell permanent injunction ordering state officials to treat same-sex couples equally)
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (observing public interest favors prevention of constitutional violations)