Jackson v. Abercrombie, Civ. No. 11–00734 ACK–KSC.
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii) |
| Citation | 884 F.Supp.2d 1065 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 11–00734 ACK–KSC. |
| Parties | Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs, v. Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawaii, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendants. and Hawaii Family Forum, Defendant–Intervenor. |
| Decision Date | 08 August 2012 |
884 F.Supp.2d 1065
Natasha N. JACKSON, Janin Kleid, and Gary Bradley, Plaintiffs,
v.
Neil S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, State of Hawaii, and Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawaii, Defendants.
and
Hawaii Family Forum, Defendant–Intervenor.
Civ. No. 11–00734 ACK–KSC.
United States District Court,
D. Hawai‘i.
Aug. 8, 2012.
[884 F.Supp.2d 1069]
John J. D'Amato, John T. Maloney, Jr., William Lee, D'Amato & Maloney LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.
Girard D. Lau, Harvey E. Henderson, Jr., Robert T. Nakatsuji, Office of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Governor Abercrombie.
William J. Wynhoff, Office of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Loretta J. Fuddy.
Dale Schowengerdt, Brian W. Raum, Holly L. Carmichael, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ, Lloyd James Hochberg, Jr., Honolulu, HI, for Defendant–Intervenor.
ALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge.
+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS ¦
+-------------------¦
¦ ¦
+-------------------+
+---------------------------------------------+
¦SYNOPSIS ¦1070¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¦1072¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¦1074¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Same–Sex Marriage in Hawaii ¦1074 ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦II. ¦Same–Sex Marriage Nationwide ¦1077 ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Federal Defense of Marriage Act ¦1078 ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦IV. ¦The Parties in This Case ¦1079 ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------+
¦STANDARD ¦1080¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦DISCUSSION ¦1081¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Defendant Abercrombie's Status as a Party¦1081¦
+--------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Sovereign Immunity ¦1081¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦B.¦Article III ¦1082¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Baker v. Nelson ¦1084¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦The Due Process Claim ¦1086¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦B.¦The Equal Protection Claim ¦1086¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦The Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims ¦1088 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Perry v. Brown ¦1088¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦B.¦Romer v. Evans ¦1092¦
+---+--+-----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦C.¦Plaintiffs' Due Process Claim ¦1093¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Description of the Asserted Fundamental Right¦1094 ¦
+----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦The Nation's History and Tradition ¦1096 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦D.¦Plaintiffs' Equal Protection ¦1098¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Gender Discrimination ¦1098¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Sexual Orientation Discrimination ¦1099¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦E.¦Rational Basis Review ¦1102¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Standard ¦1102¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Application ¦1105¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a. ¦Plaintiffs' and Defendant Abercrombie's ¦1106 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Overarching Arguments. ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦i. ¦The Relevant Question. ¦1106 ¦
+----+----+---+---+---+---------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ii.¦Effect of the Civil Unions Law ¦1107 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b. ¦Encouraging the Stability of Relationships that ¦1111 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Have the Ability to Procreate Naturally ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Promoting the Ideal, Where Possible, Children Are ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c. ¦Raised by Their Mother and Father in a Stable ¦1114 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Relationship ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d. ¦Cautiously Experimenting With Social Change ¦1116 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦CONCLUSION ¦1119¦
+---------------------------------------------+
[884 F.Supp.2d 1070]
This action is one of multiple lawsuits that have been filed in state and federal courts seeking to invalidate laws that reserve marriage to those relationships between a man and woman. Specifically, Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that Article 1, Section 23 of the Hawaii Constitution, which provides that “[t]he legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples,” and Hawaii Revised Statutes § 572–1, which states that marriage “shall be only between a man and a woman,” violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.
The Court is mindful of the Supreme Court's cautionary note that “[b]y extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Thus, “[t]he doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). “This note of caution is especially important in cases ... where moral and personal passions run high and where there is great risk that ‘the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause [will] be subtly transformed into the policy preferences' of unelected judges.” Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1174 (9th Cir.2011) (O'Scannlain, J., concurring) (second alteration in original) (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258). In discussing the importance of judicial restraint in certain circumstances, the Hawaii Supreme Court has likewise acknowledged the need to “recognize that, although courts, at times, in arriving at decisions have taken into consideration social needs and policy, it is the paramount role of the legislature as a coordinate branch of our government to meet the needs and demands of changing times and legislative accordingly.” Bissen v. Fujii, 51 Haw. 636, 466 P.2d 429, 431 (1970).
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Court's summary dismissal for want of a substantial federal question in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972) (mem.). In Baker, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision holding that a Minnesota statute that defined marriage as a union between persons of the opposite sex did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution. See
[884 F.Supp.2d 1071]
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), appeal dismissed,409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972). Alternatively, Plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits.
The Court first notes that Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2012), a case in which the Ninth Circuit held that an amendment to the California Constitution that stated “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (“Proposition 8”) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, does not control this case. The Ninth Circuit repeatedly asserted that its holding was limited to the unique facts of California's same-sex marriage history, i.e., “California had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Obergefell v. Wymyslo
...have not found that a right to same-sex marriage is implicated in the fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1094–98 (D.Haw.2012) (“Other courts considering claims that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, have concluded that the ri......
-
Latta v. Otter
...one case that analyzes the doctrinal developments since Baker, and that case was decided before Windsor. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1085–86 (D.Haw.2012) (concluding pre-Windsor doctrinal developments did not overcome Baker ). The Supreme Court's due process and equal pr......
-
Bostic v. Schaefer
...Process Clause includes a right” to same-sex marriage. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 723, 117 S.Ct. 2258; see also Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1095 (D.Haw.2012) (“[M]issing from Plaintiffs' asserted ‘right to marry the person of one's choice’ is its centerpiece: the right to marry......
-
Sevcik v. Sandoval, 2:12–cv–00578–RCJ–PAL.
...the Jackson and Dragovich courts, which have ruled that High Tech Gays survived Lawrence in this regard. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1100–01 (D.Haw.2012) (ruling that Lawrence did not undercut High Tech Gays' holding that rational basis scrutiny applies to sexual-orienta......