81 F. Supp. 3d 1285
S.D. Ala.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand, a same-sex couple married in California, sought to have Searcy adopt McKeand’s biological son under Alabama law permitting a spouse to adopt a spouse’s child.
- Probate court denied the adoption because Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court challenging both Alabama provisions as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (and raised a Full Faith and Credit argument).
- Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; no material facts were disputed and the case presented purely legal issues.
- The State argued Baker v. Nelson foreclosed federal review; Plaintiffs relied on subsequent doctrinal developments (notably Lawrence and Windsor) to press their constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama must recognize Plaintiffs’ out-of-state same-sex marriage (Full Faith & Credit) | Out-of-state marriage should be recognized; non-recognition violates constitutional protections | Baker and state sovereignty permit non-recognition | Court did not need to decide Full Faith & Credit after resolving equal protection/due process in Plaintiffs’ favor |
| Whether Alabama’s marriage ban violates Equal Protection | Law unlawfully discriminates against same-sex couples; sexual orientation classification warrants heightened review or at least strict scrutiny because it burdens marriage | Baker controls; if not, classification is not a suspect class and survives rational basis | Court applied heightened review (finding marriage a fundamental right) and held the laws violate Equal Protection |
| Whether the right to marry (including same-sex couples) is a fundamental liberty interest (Due Process) | Right to marry is fundamental; bans on same-sex marriage infringe liberty and dignity protected by Due Process | State interest in preserving traditional marriage and promoting biological parent-child relationships justifies the laws | Court found marriage is a fundamental right and the laws are not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, so they violate Due Process |
| Whether Baker v. Nelson bars federal courts from deciding same-sex marriage challenges | Plaintiffs: Baker is not controlling after Lawrence and Windsor | Defendant: Baker is binding precedent barring relief | Court concluded Baker is not controlling in light of later Supreme Court developments and persuasive circuits, and proceeded to the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (summary dismissal; discussed as potentially controlling precedent)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (invalidated laws criminalizing private consensual same-sex conduct; doctrinal development undermining Baker)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (federal definition of marriage invalidated; emphasized dignity and equal treatment of same-sex couples)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (recognized marriage as a fundamental right)
- Lofton v. Secretary of Dep’t. of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) (Eleventh Circuit precedent declining to treat sexual orientation as a suspect classification)
- Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) (rejected Baker’s continued applicability; struck down state same-sex marriage ban)
- Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (applied heightened scrutiny to marriage restrictions and invalidated Virginia’s ban)