Hamby v. Parnell

• Decision Date: 12 October 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:14–cv–00089–TMB.
• Citation: 56 F.Supp.3d 1056
• Parties: Matthew HAMBY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sean C. PARNELL, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

56 F.Supp.3d 1056

Matthew HAMBY, et al., Plaintiffs

v.Sean C. PARNELL, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:14–cv–00089–TMB.

United States District Court, D. Alaska.

Signed Oct. 12, 2014.

Allison E. Mendel, Mendel & Associates, Caitlin Shortell, Heather Leigh Gardner, Shortell Gardner, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiffs.

Kevin Todd Wakley, State of Alaska, Department of Law, William E. Milks, Alaska Office of the Attorney General, Juneau, AK, for Defendants.

ORDER

TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The issue in this case is whether Alaska's constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.¹ The Plaintiffs are five same-sex couples living in Alaska; four of the couples are lawfully married in other states and one couple is unmarried but seeks to marry in Alaska (“Plaintiffs”).² All couples wish to have their commitments legally recognized by the State of Alaska. The Defendants, sued in their official capacities, are: Sean Parnell, the Governor of the State of Alaska; Michael Geraghty, the Attorney General of the State of Alaska; William J. Streur, the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services; and Phillip Mitchell, the section chief of the Division of Public Health of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services for the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics (“Defendants”).³

Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Alaska's laws banning same-sex marriage and refusing to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully entered in another state violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.⁴ Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.⁵ The Defendants deny any violation of the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and therefore seek summary judgment as a matter of law in their favor.⁶

For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Court finds that Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of three Alaskan laws: Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution and Alaska statutes Section 25.05.011 and Section 25.05.013 (collectively, “the same-sex marriage laws”). Article 1, Section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, adopted in 1998 and effective in 1999, confines the definition of a valid marriage to couples of the opposite sex:

§ 25. Marriage

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.⁷

Alaska statute Section 25.05.011, enacted in 1996, reiterates the definition of marriage as being between male-female couples and prevents the solemnization of any marriage that does not meet that requirement:

§ 25.05.011. Civil Contract

(a) Marriage is a civil contract entered into by one man and one woman that requires both a license and solemnization. The man and the woman must each be at least one of the following:

(1) 18 years of age or older and otherwise capable;

(2) Qualified for a license under Alaska Stat. § 25.05.171 ; or

(3) A member of the armed forces of the United States while on active duty.

(b) A Person may not be joined in marriage in this state until a license has been obtained for that purpose as provided in this chapter. A marriage performed in this state is not valid without solemnization as provided in this chapter.⁸

Alaska law recognized valid marriages entered in other states. However, in 1996, Section 25.05.013 was written to specifically exclude out-of-state same-sex marriages from that formal recognition. It provides:

§ 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.

(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.

(b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.⁹

In combination, the same-sex marriage laws specifically identify homosexual couples as a group that is (1) not entitled to the benefits and responsibilities conferred by marriage, and (2) excluded from having lawful out-of-state marriages recognized by the State of Alaska. The Plaintiffs argue that the laws' effect stigmatizes same-sex couples and their children by relegating them to a “second class status,” as well as “undermines the Plaintiffs' ability to achieve their aspirations, disadvantages them financially, and denies them ‘dignity and status of immense import.’ ”¹⁰ The Plaintiffs allege that these harms deprive them of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which include the right of all people to choose whom to marry and to be treated equally under the law.¹¹

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”¹² The facts of this case are not in dispute; the Plaintiffs present a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Alaska's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states. Challenges regarding facial constitutionality implicate only issues of law.¹³ If Plaintiffs demonstrate that Alaska's same-sex marriage laws are facially invalid, the Court will strike the laws as unconstitutional.¹⁴

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”¹⁵ “At the heart of [Fourteenth Amendment] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”¹⁶ While the power to define and regulate marriage is allocated to the separate states, state laws still may not infringe upon individual constitutional rights.¹⁷ Although the freedoms guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are closely related and often intersect,¹⁸ the Court will address each clause in turn.

A. The Due Process Clause

Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, containing both procedural and substantive components, protects “all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty ... from invasion by the States.”¹⁹ Protection provided by the substantive component of due process “barr[s] certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them ... [and] serves to prevent governmental power from being ‘used for purposes of oppression.’ ”²⁰ Furthermore, “[n]either the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.”²¹

To be considered “fundamental,” a right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition”²² and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” to the point that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”²³ In addition to procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,²⁴ the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that an individual's choice to marry is a fundamental right protected by due process.²⁵ While the power to define and regulate marriage is allocated to the separate states, state laws still may not infringe upon individual constitutional rights.²⁶

Here, the Court is initially tasked with determining whether the right to marry an individual of the same sex and the right to have legal recognition of a same-sex marriage entered in another state are fundamental rights. If so, the Court asks whether and to what degree Alaska's same-sex marriage laws infringe upon those rights.²⁷ If the laws significantly interfere with the Plaintiffs' rights, the laws “cannot be upheld unless [they are] supported by sufficiently important state interests and [are] closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”²⁸

B. The Equal Protection Clause

In analyzing an equal protection challenge, the Court first identifies the classification made by the state.²⁹ Depending on the classification, the Court uses different standards of review to determine whether a law violates equal protection.³⁰ The highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, applies to “suspect classes” (e.g., classifications based on race, religion, and national origin) and requires the government to prove that a discriminatory law is “narrowly tailored” to achieving a “compelling” state interest.³¹ The lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, applies to classifications that are generally assumed to be valid (e.g., the elderly and mentally handicapped) and requires that the law be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” state interest.³² The Court applies intermediate scrutiny for “quasi-suspect” classes (e.g., gender and illegitimacy), requiring that the law be “substantially related” to achieving a “sufficiently important governmental interest.”³³

In this case, the State of Alaska has constructed its marriage laws to exclude a class identified on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has yet to declare what standard of review is appropriate for laws that discriminate on this basis, but the Court is not left without guidance. Just days ago, in Latta...