892 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. 2017), S-16-018, Stewart v. Heineman
|Citation:||892 N.W.2d 542, 296 Neb. 262|
|Opinion Judge:||Wright, J.|
|Party Name:||GREG STEWART ET AL., APPELLEES, v. DAVE HEINEMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF NEBRASKA, ET AL., APPELLANTS|
|Attorney:||Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, James D. Smith, Ryan S. Post, and Jessica M. Forch for appellants. Amy A. Miller, of ACLU Nebraska Foundation, Inc., Leslie Cooper, of ACLU Foundation, Inc., and Garrard R. Beeney and W. Rudolph Kleysteuber, of Sullivan & Cromwell, L.L.P., for appellees. Rob...|
|Judge Panel:||HEAVICAN, C.J., WRIGHT, MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, STACY, KELCH, and FUNKE, JJ.|
|Case Date:||April 07, 2017|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nebraska|
Plaintiffs were three same-sex couples who sought to enjoin Defendants from enforcing a 1995 administrative memorandum and from restricting gay and lesbian individuals and couples from being considered or selected as foster or adoptive parents. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the policy violated equal protection and due process and violated 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court ordered the memorandum... (see full summary)
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
2. Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. When attorney fees are authorized, the trial court exercises its discretion in setting the amount of the fee, which ruling an appellate court will not disturb on appeal unless the court abused its discretion.
3. Summary Judgment. In the summary judgment context, a fact is material only if it would affect the outcome of the case.
4. Justiciable Issues. A justiciable issue requires a present, substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests susceptible to immediate resolution and capable of present judicial enforcement.
5. Courts: Justiciable Issues. A court decides real controversies and determines rights actually controverted, and does not address or dispose of abstract questions or issues that might arise in a hypothetical or fictitious situation or setting.
6. Justiciable Issues: Standing. Standing is a key function in determining whether a justiciable controversy exists.
7. Standing: Jurisdiction. Standing requires that a litigant have such a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy as to warrant invocation of a court's jurisdiction and justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers on the litigant's behalf.
8. Actions: Justiciable Issues: Standing. The ripeness doctrine is rooted in the same general policies of justiciability as standing and mootness. As compared to standing, ripeness assumes that an asserted injury is sufficient to support standing, but asks whether the injury is too contingent or remote to support present adjudication.
9. Actions: Jurisdiction. An appellate court uses a two-part inquiry to determine ripeness: (1) the jurisdictional question of the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the prudential question concerning the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.
10. Declaratory Judgments. The function of a declaratory judgment is to determine justiciable controversies which either are not yet ripe for adjudication by conventional forms of remedy or, for other reasons, are not conveniently amenable to the usual remedies.
11. Equal Protection: Discrimination. The injury in an equal protection case is the imposition of a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit, rather than the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.
12. Discrimination. When the government erects a barrier that makes it more difficult for members of one group to obtain a benefit than it is for members of another group, a member of the former group seeking to challenge the barrier need only demonstrate that he or she is ready and able to perform and that a discriminatory policy prevents him or her from doing so on an equal basis.
13. Discrimination: Standing. For those persons who are personally subject to discriminatory treatment, stigmatizing injury caused by discrimination is a serious noneconomic injury that is sufficient to support standing.
14. Standing. Standing does not require exercises in futility.
15. Actions: Moot Question. An action becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.
16. Discrimination: Declaratory Judgments: Injunction: Proof. If a discriminatory policy is openly declared, then it is unnecessary for a plaintiff to demonstrate it is followed in order to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief.
17. Actions: Moot Question. A defendant cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its unlawful conduct once sued.
18. Actions: Moot Question: Proof. A defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.
19. Appeal and Error. A court's consideration of a cause on appeal is limited to errors assigned and discussed.
20. Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. On appeal, a trial court's decision awarding or denying attorney fees will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: JOHN A. COLBORN, Judge.
[296 Neb. 263] Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, James D. Smith, Ryan S. Post, and Jessica M. Forch for appellants.
Amy A. Miller, of ACLU Nebraska Foundation, Inc., Leslie Cooper, of ACLU Foundation, Inc., and Garrard R. Beeney and W. Rudolph Kleysteuber, of Sullivan & Cromwell, L.L.P., for appellees.
Robert McEwen and Sarah Helvey, of Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, for amicus curiae Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest.
Daniel S. Volchok and Kevin M. Lamb, of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P., and Robert F. Bartle, of Bartle & Geier Law Firm, for amici curiae Child Welfare League of America et al.
HEAVICAN, C.J., WRIGHT, MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, STACY, KELCH, and FUNKE, JJ.
[296 Neb. 264] Wright, J.
I. NATURE OF CASE
The plaintiffs, three same-sex couples, sought, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), to enjoin the defendants, Dave Heineman, the former Governor of the State of Nebraska; Kerry Winterer, in his official capacity as the chief executive officer of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); and Thomas Pristow, in his official capacity as the director of the Division of Children and Family Services, from enforcing a 1995 administrative memorandum and from restricting gay and lesbian individuals and couples from being considered or selected as foster or adoptive parents. The court ordered the memorandum rescinded and stricken and enjoined the defend ants and those acting in concert with them from enforcing the memorandum and/or applying a categorical ban [296 Neb. 265] to gay and lesbian individuals and couples seeking to be licensed as foster care parents or to adopt a state ward. The court further ordered the defendants and those acting in concert to " refrain from adopting or applying policies, procedures, or review processes that treat gay and lesbian individuals and couples differently from similarly situated heterosexual individuals and couples when evaluating foster care or adoption applicants under the 'best interests of the child' standard set forth in DHHS' regulations." The court awarded the plaintiffs costs and attorney fees.
The defendants appeal. They do not assert that it is constitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the licensing or placement of state wards in foster care. Instead, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs lack standing because they have not yet applied for and been rejected in obtaining a foster care license or in having a state ward placed in their homes. Alternatively, the defendants argue that there was no case and controversy, because the memorandum that was the focus of the plaintiffs' complaint ceased to be the policy of DHHS by the time this lawsuit was filed, despite the fact that the memorandum was never rescinded and it remained on the DHHS website. Finally, the defendants claim that the plaintiffs' lawsuit became moot when the policy memorandum was removed from the DHHS website 3 weeks after the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was filed.
The complaint, filed on August 27, 2013, centered on an administrative memorandum (Memo 1-95) issued in 1995 by the then Department of Social Services, which subsequently became DHHS in 1996. Memo 1-95 was written by the director of the department and states in relevant part:
Page 547 It is my decision that effective immediately, it is the policy of the Department of Social Services that children will not be placed in the homes of persons who identify [296 Neb. 266] themselves as homosexuals. This policy also applies to the area of foster home licensure in that, effective immediately, no foster home license shall be issued to persons who identify themselves as homosexuals.
A similar policy was set forth in Memo 1-95 regarding unmarried heterosexual couples. An addendum to Memo 1-95 directed staff not to specifically ask about an individual's sexual orientation or marital status beyond those inquiries already included in the licensing application and home study. The stated reason for the policy was this State's intent to place children in the most " family-like setting" when out-of-home care is necessary. Though Memo 1-95 and the addendum stated that staff would be drafting a proposed program and licensing regulation to be brought before a public hearing in a more formal manner, such proceedings apparently never occurred.
The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that Memo 1-95 was still " in effect" as of April 1, 2013. It was not disputed by the defendants that Memo 1-95 had not been " rescinded or replaced."
The complaint alleged that Memo 1-95 set forth a policy prohibiting the Department of Social Services, now DHHS, from issuing foster home licenses to or placing foster children with persons who identify themselves as homosexuals or unrelated, unmarried adults living together. The plaintiffs alleged that this policy also effectively banned homosexuals from adopting...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP