Sevcik v. Sandoval
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169643
D. Nev.2012Background
- Nevada constitution prohibits recognizing same-sex marriages; Nevada domestic partnerships exist and provide many rights of marriage; several plaintiffs are same-sex couples seeking marriage or recognition of foreign marriages; some plaintiffs were denied licenses, others seek recognition of foreign marriages as marriages; defendants moved for dismissal and the court addressed summary judgment after briefing and hearings; court preliminarily treats the equal protection challenge under Baker and Romer analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Baker v. Nelson preclude the equal protection claim? | Plaintiffs argue Baker does not control; Romer may apply. | Baker controls; the claim is largely precluded. | Partially precluded; Romer-based theory remains for Romer line. |
| What level of scrutiny applies to sexual-orientation distinctions? | Distinct treatment burdens homosexuals; seek heightened scrutiny. | Distinction is rational-basis; no heightened scrutiny. | Rational-basis scrutiny applies; no heightened scrutiny. |
| Is Nevada's marriage/domestic partnership regime rationally related to a legitimate state interest? | Plans to stigmatize same-sex couples; no legitimate rational basis. | Preservation of traditional marriage justifies distinction; rational basis exists. | Yes; rational basis supports maintaining distinction. |
| Do Romer v. Evans or Perry v. Brown alter the outcome here? | Romer/Perry could invalidate withdrawal of rights or targeted changes. | Romer/policy not controlling for Nevada’s factual regime. | Romer analysis not controlling to strike down; limited Romer analysis acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (summary dismissal implicitly decided the merit; precludes broader equal protection challenge)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (reciprocal disabilities do not automatically mandate heightened scrutiny)
- Rom er v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (withdrawal of existing rights toward minority groups can violate EP under Romer)
- Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (upheld Romer-based reasoning; withdrawal of right challenged under Romer)
- Law rence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (overruled Bowers on due process; not controlling for this EP analysis but cited for context)