Wolf v. Walker
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77125
W.D. Wis.2014Background
- Fifteen plaintiffs (eight same-sex couples) are Wisconsin residents who either seek to marry in Wisconsin or seek recognition of marriages lawfully entered elsewhere; Wisconsin’s constitution (Art. XIII, §13) and statutes limit marriage to a man and a woman.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials challenging the constitutional amendment and statutes as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process — fundamental right to marry — and equal protection).
- Defendants moved to dismiss; plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Milwaukee, Dane and Racine county clerks did not take positions; Wisconsin Family Action filed amicus briefing.
- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment, declaring the state constitutional provision and statutory provisions that restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
- The court held the marriage ban impermissibly burdens plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, applying heightened scrutiny and finding the State failed to justify the restriction.
- The court stayed entry of a detailed injunction pending plaintiffs’ proposed injunction language and briefing on a stay; it reserved ruling on a stay pending supplemental materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baker v. Nelson bars federal review of same-sex marriage challenges | Baker is not controlling given doctrinal developments (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor); federal courts may adjudicate | Baker is binding precedent that forecloses these claims | Baker is not controlling; court may reach merits in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions |
| Whether the Due Process right to marry includes the right to marry a same‑sex partner | Right to marry is fundamental and its scope encompasses choice of partner irrespective of sex; exclusion is a significant interference | Right to marry is not coextensive with same‑sex marriage; historical tradition and Glucksberg counsel exclusion | Right to marry includes same‑sex choice; Wisconsin’s ban significantly interferes and triggers heightened scrutiny under Zablocki |
| Appropriate Equal Protection scrutiny for sexual‑orientation discrimination | Sexual orientation warrants heightened scrutiny (suspect or quasi‑suspect); laws stigmatize and impose second‑class status | Rational‑basis review applies; classification is permissible as a positive‑benefit policy or a matter of state sovereignty | Sexual‑orientation discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny (assumed intermediate scrutiny); stigma and equal‑citizenship concerns are important |
| Whether asserted state interests (tradition, procreation, optimal child‑rearing, protecting marriage, caution, slippery‑slope) justify the ban | No legitimate, sufficiently tailored state interest shown; asserted interests are underinclusive or unsupported | Interests in tradition, procreation, child welfare, defending marriage, and caution justify preserving opposite‑sex marriage | The State failed to identify important, closely tailored interests; the asserted rationales are inadequate; the ban is unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (invalidated DOMA and emphasized stigma and second‑class status imposed on same‑sex marriages)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (struck down state constitutional amendment discriminating on basis of sexual orientation)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (invalidated sodomy law; protected intimate autonomy and rejected moral disapproval as sufficient justification)
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (invalidated anti‑miscegenation law; affirmed marriage as a fundamental right)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (applied heightened scrutiny where statute significantly interfered with right to marry)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (confirmed marriage as a fundamental right even in constrained contexts)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (framework addressing deeply rooted historical traditions in substantive‑due‑process analysis)
- Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summary dismissal discussed as precedent but held not controlling given later doctrinal developments)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (protected marital privacy and framed marriage and intimate choices within substantive due process)