Waters v. Ricketts, 159 F. Supp. 3d 992

Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Neb. Const. art. I, § 29 (Section 29), which bars same-sex marriage and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The district court previously granted a preliminary injunction ordering state officials to treat same-sex couples the same as different-sex couples for marriage licensing and related benefits.
Defendants appealed and obtained a stay; the Eighth Circuit deferred action pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
After Obergefell, defendants argued the case was moot and raised Eleventh Amendment concerns; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction and remanded for entry of final judgment.
The district court concluded Section 29 remains on the books, plaintiffs still face ongoing injuries (including reported birth-certificate denials), and Section 29 must be declared unconstitutional and permanently enjoined under Obergefell.
The court retained jurisdiction for at least three years to enforce the injunction and address related issues that may arise (e.g., birth-certificate practices).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness / jurisdiction	Case not moot; Section 29 remains part of state constitution and plaintiffs still need protection	Obergefell and state assurances moot the case; Eighth Circuit retains jurisdiction	Not moot; Eighth Circuit remanded and district court retains jurisdiction to decide final relief
Claim to declaratory relief for past liability (Eleventh Amendment)	Plaintiffs seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief only	A declaratory judgment as to past liability is barred by sovereign immunity	Court treats relief as prospective injunction; Eleventh Amendment does not bar requested prospective relief
Merits: constitutionality of Section 29	Section 29 violates Due Process and Equal Protection; Obergefell governs	Defendants rely on Obergefell but argue this case is moot/no relief needed	Court declares Section 29 unconstitutional under Obergefell and grants permanent injunction
Remedy scope / incidental disputes (e.g., birth certificates)	Injunction should require equal treatment in all marriage-related benefits, including birth certificates	State argues it has changed practices; disputes may be moot or require separate proceedings	Court orders equal treatment for marriage licensing and related rights; reserves jurisdiction to address specific implementation issues (may require further proceedings)

Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (holding same-sex marriage bans and refusal to recognize same-sex marriages violate the Fourteenth Amendment)
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (identifying harms from marriage recognition bans and informing analysis of marriage-related benefits)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (framework for preliminary injunction analysis)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (defendant asserting voluntary compliance must show the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials to redress ongoing violations of federal law)