Jackson v. Abercrombie
| Decision Date | 08 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 11–00734 ACK–KSC. |
| Citation | 884 F.Supp.2d 1065 |
| 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. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.
ORDER GRANTING HFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT FUDDY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT ABERCROMBIE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT ABERCROMBIE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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) () (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...
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
...Due 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 m......
-
Sevcik v. Sandoval
...is not “clearly irreconcilable” with Lawrence such that a district court may ignore it under Miller. Rather, the Court agrees with 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......