Date: 08-11-2015

Case Style: Rita Jernigan v. Dustin McDaniel

Case Number: 15-1022

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pulaski County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Little Rock, AR - Eight Circuit holds that same sex prohibition in Arkansas Constitution is unconsitutional

Plaintiffs are two same-sex couples seeking to marry in Arkansas or to have
their marriage in another state recognized in Arkansas. They also seek state benefits
incident to marriage. The district court1 granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment, finding laws denying them the right to marry (in Arkansas Constitution
Amendment 83 and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 9-11-107, 9-11-109, and 9-11-208)
violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. In
addition to a declaratory judgment, the court issued a permanent injunction, but stayed
it pending appeal. Arkansas appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
this court affirms.
While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v.
Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), abrogating Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning,
455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). This court asked the parties for their positions on the
proper disposition of this case. Arkansas filed a suggestion of mootness and a motion
to vacate the district court’s judgment.
Arkansas no longer disputes the merits of the district court’s ruling. The
challenged laws are unconstitutional. As Obergefell concluded:
[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the
person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of
that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty
be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson [, 409 U.S. 810 (1972),] must be and
now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these
cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples
from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex
couples.
1The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-3-
Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2604-05. The Supreme Court also noted,
[I]t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious
doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that,
by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The
First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are
given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so
fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep
aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The
same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.
In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or
indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular
belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and
searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State
to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to
couples of the opposite sex.
Id. at 2607.
Arkansas suggests that Obergefell moots this case. But the Supreme Court
specifically stated that “the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are
now held invalid.” Id. at 2605 (emphasis added). Cf. United States v. Nat’l Treasury
Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 477-78 (1995) (limiting relief to the parties before the
Court and noting “we neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a
narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants”). The Court invalidated laws in
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—not Arkansas. See Campaign for S.
Equal. v. Bryant, 2015 WL 4032186, at *2 (5th Cir. July 1, 2015) (ordering district
court to enter final judgment that Texas laws denying same-sex couples the right to
marry are unconstitutional); Conde-Vidal v. Rius-Armendariz, No. 14-2184 (1st Cir.
July 8, 2015) (judgment vacating and remanding district court judgment that
dismissed challenge to law denying same-sex marriage). Arkansas acknowledges this:
“The Supreme Court did not address many of the claims asserted by Appellees and
-4-
addressed by the district court in this case . . . .” Arkansas has not repealed the
challenged laws.
Arkansas’s general assurances of compliance with Obergefell also do not moot
the case. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S.
167, 190 (2000) (“[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.”). These assurances
may, however, impact the necessity of continued injunctive relief. The district court
is better positioned to consider the issue on appropriate motion. See United States v.
Bailey, 571 F.3d 791, 804 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting this court reviews permanent
injunctions for abuse of discretion, reversing when the injunction is based on “a legal
error or a clearly erroneous finding of fact”).

Outcome: The judgment is affirmed. Arkansas’s motion to vacate the district court’s
order is denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: