508 F.Supp.3d 221
M.D. Tenn.2020Background
- Tennessee amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-301 to bar persons who receive ordination online from solemnizing civil marriages; ULC Monastery (a non‑denominational organization that ordains online) and three of its ministers challenged the Amendment.
- Plaintiffs allege the Amendment discriminates against nontraditional religious groups and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments (free exercise, establishment, free speech, due process, equal protection) and seek declaratory and prospective injunctive relief under § 1983 and state law.
- Defendants include four county clerks, the Tennessee Attorney General, four District Attorneys General, and the Governor; motions to dismiss were filed by all defendants.
- Key factual incidents: (a) Putnam County couple allegedly refused a license when informed a ULC minister would officiate (clerk referenced an AG opinion); (b) some ULC ministers canceled planned ceremonies after the Amendment passed due to enforcement fears.
- The court granted dismissal only as to Governor Bill Lee and two plaintiffs (Gale Plumm and Timeaka Farris) as moot; all other defendants and claims proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Ripeness | ULC and ministers have concrete injury: deterrence, lost ceremonies, unequal treatment; First Amendment standing is relaxed in pre‑enforcement cases | No credible enforcement threat; harms speculative; clerks/officials lack authority to enforce; statute lacks penal mechanism | Plaintiffs (except Plumm/Farris) have standing: injury in fact, traceability to clerks/AG, and redressability; ripeness satisfied under First Amendment precedent |
| Mootness of Plumm & Farris | They asserted license denial harm | They subsequently obtained marriage; no live controversy | Claims by Plumm & Farris dismissed as moot/without standing |
| Sovereign immunity / Proper defendants (Governor, AG, DAs, Clerks) | Plaintiffs seek Ex parte Young relief and name officials who influence enforcement (AG opinions, DAs prosecute, clerks issue/register licenses) | Governor lacks special enforcement connection; other officials argue immunity or lack of enforcement role | Governor dismissed for lack of connection; AG remains (advisory opinions relied on), DAs remain (prosecutorial authority), county clerks remain (license/registration duties) |
| Monell / Qualified immunity / Rule 12(b)(6) | §1983 seeks prospective relief against state actors for constitutional violations | Defendants invoke Monell, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim | Monell inapplicable; qualified immunity does not bar prospective injunctive/declaratory relief; complaint states plausible §1983 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing as Article III threshold)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (elements of standing)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective relief against state officials despite sovereign immunity)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (Establishment Clause prohibits favoring one denomination over another)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (standing in Establishment Clause contexts; concrete injury can support pre‑enforcement suits)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (injury is denial of equal treatment by a barrier)
- Universal Life Church v. Utah, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (D. Utah 2002) (similar pre‑enforcement challenge to online‑ordination ban; plaintiff had standing)
- Women’s Medical Prof’l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 1997) (prosecutors are proper defendants where they could enforce the statute)