Mayor Annise Parker and City of Houston v. Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks
477 S.W.3d 353
Tex. App.2015Background
- Two Houston residents, Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, sued Mayor Annise Parker and the City of Houston to enjoin the City from providing employee benefits to same-sex spouses of employees who were lawfully married in another state.
- Plaintiffs relied on Texas law provisions (Tex. Const. art. I, § 32; Tex. Fam. Code § 6.204) that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages and bar political subdivisions from giving effect to out-of-state same-sex marriages.
- The trial court granted a temporary injunction finding the City’s expenditures to provide such benefits would (1) recognize same-sex unions in violation of the Texas Constitution, (2) validate such marriages in violation of the Family Code, (3) give effect to claims to benefits barred by the Family Code, and (4) violate the City charter by furnishing benefits to non-legal spouses.
- The City challenged plaintiffs’ standing; the court of appeals noted plaintiffs pleaded taxpayer status and relied on precedent recognizing taxpayer standing without a particularized injury.
- After issuance of the injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, holding same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and states must recognize lawful same-sex marriages from other states.
- The Fifth Circuit, in affirming a district court in DeLeon v. Abbott, concluded Texas provisions banning recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional in light of Obergefell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City may provide employee benefits to same-sex spouses married out-of-state | Such benefits would recognize and validate same-sex marriages, violating state constitution and Family Code | City argued federal constitutional authority (not detailed in opinion); challenge focused on change in controlling law | Reversed injunction; Obergefell and subsequent Fifth Circuit authority require recognizing lawful same-sex marriages, so injunction must be vacated |
| Whether plaintiffs had standing as taxpayers to seek injunction | Plaintiffs claimed taxpayer status and alleged city funds were spent on illegal activity | City contested standing | Court of appeals accepted taxpayer standing based on precedent (Lone Star Coll. Sys.) |
| Whether state constitutional and statutory prohibitions block municipal recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages | Plaintiffs said art. I, § 32 and Fam. Code § 6.204 bar recognition and benefits | Defendant relied on supremacy of federal constitutional rulings after Obergefell | Obergefell renders those state provisions unenforceable; trial injunction inconsistent with federal law |
| Whether case should be remanded for further proceedings | Plaintiffs sought injunction enforcement | City sought reversal given changed law | Court reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Obergefell and DeLeon |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry; states must recognize lawful out-of-state same-sex marriages)
- Lone Star Coll. Sys. v. Immigration Reform Coal. of Tex., 418 S.W.3d 263 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (recognizes taxpayer standing in suit challenging municipal expenditures)
- Ahmed v. Ahmed, 261 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (appellate discretion to remand after reversal)
- Chrismon v. Brown, 246 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (discusses remand for further proceedings when record may be underdeveloped)