Tanco v. Haslam
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463
M.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Three same-sex couples married lawfully in other states moved to Tennessee; Tennessee’s state constitution and statute (the “Anti-Recognition Laws”) refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials challenging the Anti-Recognition Laws as violating due process, equal protection, and right to interstate travel, and sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement as to the six plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs submitted uncontroverted affidavits describing dignitary, practical, and imminent harms (insurance, parental rights, hospital access, property status, stigmatization); one plaintiff’s partner was pregnant and due imminently.
- Defendants argued the claims were time-barred, unlikely to succeed on the merits, and that public interest and state sovereignty weighed against injunctive relief.
- The court applied the Winter/Rule 65 preliminary-injunction framework and, relying heavily on post-Windsor federal caselaw, found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Equal Protection claim under even rational-basis review.
- The court granted a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Anti-Recognition Laws only as to the six plaintiffs pending final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / statute of limitations | Ongoing violations restart limitations each day; harms within one year | One-year statute bars claims | Court: continuing daily harms toll limitations; claims timely |
| Likelihood of success on merits — Equal Protection | Anti-Recognition Laws discriminate without adequate justification; Windsor supports protection | Laws valid under federalism and procreation rationales; Windsor limited to federal context | Court: plaintiffs likely to prevail; rational-basis review fails given lack of legitimate justification |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of constitutional rights and dignitary/ practical harms cannot be remedied by money; imminent parental/medical risks | Harms speculative; not irreparable | Court: constitutional and dignitary harms constitute irreparable injury |
| Balance of equities & public interest | State has no valid interest in enforcing likely-unconstitutional law; minimal administrative burden to recognize plaintiffs' marriages | Injunction overrides democratic will and state sovereignty; public policy favors enforcement | Court: equities and public interest favor injunction to prevent constitutional violations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (federal DOMA provision unconstitutional; recognition of valid marriages by federal government)
- Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014) (Kentucky anti-recognition law unconstitutional)
- De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (preliminary injunction against Texas anti-recognition enforcement)
- Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014) (Virginia same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional)
- Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013) (Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (loss of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm)