New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Posts Tagged ‘Indiana same-sex marriage’

Unanimous 7th Circuit Panel Strikes Down Wisconsin and Indiana Same-Sex Marriage Bans

Posted on: September 4th, 2014 by Art Leonard No Comments

Less than two weeks after roughing up attorneys for the states of Wisconsin and Indiana in a heated oral argument, a three-judge panel of the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued a unanimous decision in Baskin v. Bogan, 2014 WL 4359059  (September 4, 2014), striking down the bans on same-sex marriage in those states.  Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Richard Posner, one of Ronald Reagan’s earliest judicial appointees in 1981, decisively rejected all the states’ arguments in support of their anti-marriage laws, stating that “the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.”

With stays pending appeal in effect in both states, the 7th Circuit ruling did not effect any immediate practical change.  Both states promptly signified that they would petition the Supreme Court for review.

Judge Posner’s forty-page opinion was telegraphed by his questioning during the oral argument, for the issues that he raised and pressed repeatedly dominate his written analysis.  His first questions to the attorney for Indiana concerned the welfare of children — the children being raised by same-sex couples in Indiana whom the state prohibits from marrying and whose out-of-state marriages are denied legal recognition.  And his opinion starts in much the same way: “Formally these cases are about discrimination against the small homosexual minority in the United States.  But at a deeper level, as we shall see, they are about the welfare of American children.  The argument that the states press hardest in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only reason government encourages marriage is to induce heterosexuals to marry so that there will be fewer ‘accidental births,’ which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to the mother (unaided by the father) or to foster care.  Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.”

During the oral argument, all three judges on the panel (Posner being joined by Obama appointee David Hamilton and Clinton appointee Ann Claire Williams) were skeptical about treating this as a “fundamental right to marry” case, expressing concern about how such a right could be described in a way that would not open up arguments about a constitutional right to polygamy or incest.  Unlike the panel majorities in the 4th and 10th Circuits, who based their marriage equality rulings on the fundamental rights theory, the 7th Circuit panel preferred to take the equal protection route.  That yielded a double hit from this opinion: Not only did the court hold that the states had no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples, but it also ruled, in line with a decision earlier this year by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, that claims of anti-gay discrimination by the government are subject to heightened scrutiny, placing the burden on the government to show that its discriminatory law significantly advances an important government policy.

Most importantly, however, Posner’s opinion for the panel is sheer fun to read because of his plain-speaking, cut-through-the-cant style of dealing with ridiculous arguments.  When he finds an argument ridiculous, he does not politely abstain from commenting, in the manner of some of his more restrained judicial colleagues.  He cuts to the chase and calls ’em as he sees ’em.  Herewith some choice examples:

“Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straight-forward to decide.  The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

“Because homosexuality is not a voluntary condition and homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world, the disparagement of their sexual orientation, implicit in the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, is a source of continuing pain to the homosexual community.”

“It is apparent that groundless rejection of same-sex marriage by government must be a denial of equal protection of the laws, and therefore that Indiana and Wisconsin must to prevail establish a clearly offsetting governmental interest in that rejection.  Whether they have done so is really the only issue before us, and the balance of this opinion is devoted to it — except that before addressing it we must address the states’ argument that whatever the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, we are bound by Baker v. Nelson to reject them. . .  Baker was decided in 1972 — 42 years ago and the dark ages so far as litigation over discrimination against homosexuals is concerned.  Subsequent decisions such as Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor are distinguishable from the present two cases but make clear that Baker is no longer authoritative.  At least we think they’re distinguishable.  But Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion in Lawrence, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, thought not.  He wrote that ‘principle and logic’ would require the Court, given its decision in Lawrence, to hold that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Nothing like enlisting Scalia on your side in a gay rights decision. . .

After extensively criticizing Indiana’s “channeling-procreation” argument and pointing out its inconsistency with the state’s convoluted rules concerning marriages between elderly first cousins, Posner focused on the “irresponsible procreation” argument, and observed:  “Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combinations of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produced children unwanted or wanted, are model parents — model citizens really — so have no need for marriage.  Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry.  Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry.  Go figure.”

He also points out that if Indiana and Wisconsin are trying to reduce out-of-wedlock births by denying marriage to same-sex couples, their strategy is not working, citing statistics showing the rate of children born in such circumstances went up in each state after they adopted explicit bans on same-sex marriage.  He also pointed out that gay couples are more likely to adopt children than straight couples, and many of those children will be the out-of-wedlock children surrendered for adoption by single mothers.  “If the fact that a child’s parents are married enhances the child’s prospects for a happy and successful life, as Indiana believes not without reason,” he wrote, “this should be true whether the child’s parents are natural or adoptive.  The state’s lawyers tell us that ‘the point of marriage’s associated benefits and protections is to encourage child-rearing environments where parents care for their biological children in tandem.’ Why the qualifier ‘biological’?  The state recognizes that family is about raising children and not just about producing them.  It does not explain why the ‘point of marriage’s associated benefits and protections’ is inapplicable to a couple’s adopted as distinct from biological children.”

He suggested that letting same-sex couples raising adopted children marry would provide emotional comfort to their children.  “Suppose such a child comes home from school one day and reports to his parents that all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be).  Children, being natural conformists, tend to be upset upon discovering that they’re not in step with their peers.  If a child’s same-sex parents are married, however, the parents can tell the child truthfully that an adult is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex, or if the adult prefers as some do a person of his or her own sex, but that either way the parents are married and therefore the child can feel secure in being the child of a married couple.  Conversely, imagine the parents having to tell their child that same-sex couples can’t marry, and so the child is not the child of a married couple, unlike his classmates.”

Judge Posner took apart the argument by Wisconsin’s lawyer that “tradition” justifies the marriage ban.  “Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance,” he wrote.  “There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka’s ‘In the Penal Colony’ and Shirley Jackson’s ‘The Lottery,’ bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween).  Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination — regardless of the age of the tradition.”  He went on to quote the same passage from Oliver Wendell Holmes that the late Justice Harry Blackmun cited in his dissent from the infamous 1986 Supreme Court sodomy case, Bowers v. Hardwick: “Holmes thought it ‘revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV.”  Posner helpfully added that the English King Henry IV died in 1413.  To show the age of the tradition underlying this marriage ban, he went on to quote Leviticus 18:22, and concluded on this point, “If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written into law and it discriminates against a number of people and does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection clause.”

Responding to Wisconsin’s argument about “thousands of years of collective experience” showing that different-sex marriage is “optimal for the family, society, and civilization,” Posner pointed out that Wisconsin provided no evidence in support of this claim, and then he listed several countries that today allow polygamy, adding, in a little flourish, “parts of Utah.”  “But suppose the assertion is correct?” he asked.  “How does that bear on same-sex marriage?  Does Wisconsin want to push homosexuals to marry persons of the opposite sex because opposite-sex marriage is ‘optimal?’  Does it think that allowing same-sex marriage will cause heterosexuals to convert to homosexuality?  Efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality have been a bust; is the opposite conversion more feasible?”

As to the contention that allowing same-sex marriage will harm society, Posner pointed to estimates of the gay population ranging from 1.5% to 4%, and concluded: “Given how small the percentage is, it is sufficiently implausible that allowing same-sex marriage would cause palpable harm to family, society, or civilization to require the state to tender evidence justifying its fears; it has provided none.”  He pointed out that the states had provided no evidence that “any heterosexuals have been harmed by same-sex marriage,” and observed that even though some people might be “distressed by the idea or reality of such marriage,” this could not count as a harm that would justify the ban.  Even though many people disapproved of or were offended by interracial marriage and sodomy, the Supreme Court struck down laws against both.

As to the argument by Indiana and Wisconsin that the popularly enacted marriage amendments should enjoy some immunity from constitutional attack, Posner responded: “Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law.”

Although the court found no rational basis for the marriage bans, and thus could have avoided ruling on whether sexual orientation discrimination merits heightened scrutiny, Posner took that issue on, rejecting the states’ arguments that gay people are a political powerful group that needs no help from the courts.  The marriage amendment passed in Wisconsin would surely argue otherwise.  Posner emphasized the history of anti-gay discrimination — which he characterized during oral argument as “savage”, the extensive scientific literature on the issue of immutability, and the lack of relevance of sexual orientation to a person’s ability to contribute to society, finding that all the factors for finding a “suspect classification” applied to sexual orientation.  While not strictly necessary to support the court’s ruling, this finding may be very useful in future cases in the 7th Circuit challenging discriminatory state policies.

With this opinion, three federal courts of appeals have ruled in favor of marriage equality, and it is widely predicted that the 9th Circuit will add to that number after hearing arguments on September 8.  Less certain is the outcome in the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, which heard arguments weeks before the 7th Circuit but has yet to issue its opinion.  (Posner is a notoriously fast writer of judicial opinions, and this one bears the hallmarks of haste, including one page where some lines of text seem to have been omitted from the opinion as first released by the court.)  Appeals are now pending in the 5th Circuit, where Texas has appealed a pro-marriage equality ruling and plaintiffs are about to appeal an absurdly reasoned federal anti-marriage ruling from Louisiana.  On the same day the 7th Circuit ruled, Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi announced that she had filed a notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit from a recent federal court marriage equality ruling in that state.  There will be no marriage equality rulings from the 2nd or 3rd Circuits, as every state in both circuits already allows same-sex couples to marry, either by legislation or court order.  The Boston-based 1st Circuit might still be heard from; even though all the states in the circuit have marriage equality, its jurisdiction also covers Puerto Rico, where a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s marriage ban is pending.  The 8th Circuit, where cases are pending in several district courts, has yet to be heard from in the current round of litigation, although it rejected a challenge to Nebraska’s marriage amendment in 2006.   The 7th Circuit’s ruling brings closer the possibility that marriage equality might be achieved nationwide through circuit court opinions without Supreme Court intervention, if that court were to let petitions accumulate and denying them all once the boards have been swept clean.  But one dissenting circuit would virtually guarantee Supreme Court review.

Attorneys from Lambda Legal and the Indiana and National ACLU argued the case for plaintiffs before the 7th Circuit, while the states of Indiana and Wisconsin were represented by the Indiana Solicitor General and a Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General.  It seems likely that the Republican governors of both states will petition the Supreme Court for review, although Wisconsin’s governor has been less outspoken than Indiana’s in opposition to same-sex marriage.  Wouldn’t it be grand if both read Posner’s extremely persuasive opinion and followed the example of Pennsylvania’s Republican governor in dropping further appeals?

 

7th Circuit Panel Roughs Up State Attorneys in Marriage Equality Arguments

Posted on: August 26th, 2014 by Art Leonard 1 Comment

A panel of three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, based in Chicago, gave a very rough time to attorneys from the states of Indiana and Wisconsin on August 26 during oral arguments about marriage equality appeals from those states.  Three district court rulings from Indiana and one from Wisconsin issued earlier in 2014 had found unconstitutional those states’ refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry or to recognize their marriages contracted in other jurisdictions, and the states had appealed.  Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher and Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy C. Samuelson probably anticipated tough questioning from Democratic appointees Ann Claire Williams and David Hamilton, but one suspects they were not anticipating the kind of tough cross-examination they got from Richard Posner, the most senior member of the panel who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s.

Judge Posner, a father of the law-and-economics movement and a devoted empiricist, actually mocked the arguments he was getting from the state attorneys, but anyone who has been following the trend of marriage equality decisions over the past year might have predicted this result in light of Posner’s record of relentlessly pursuing facts and logic in his decisions.  Posner pressed both attorneys for some reason why neither state would allow or recognize same-sex marriages.  Referring to data showing that about 250,000 children nationwide are living with gay adoptive parents, about 3,000 of whom are in Indiana, he pressed Fisher for a reason why Indiana would deny those children the same rights and security of having married parents that are accorded to the adopted children of married couples, and Fisher could give him no real answer.

Wouldn’t it help those children if their parents could marry, asked Posner?   What’s better for the welfare of these children — that their parents be allowed to marry or prevented from marrying?  Posner’s insistent questions followed up on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comment in his opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Windsor about the way denial of marriage to same-sex couples humiliates their children, who are being told by the state that their families are second class and not worthy of marriage.

Fisher insisted, as virtually the sole justification for Indiana’s marriage ban, on a state interest in making marriage available to different-sex couples so that their children would be tied to their biological parents in stable families.  But, having conceded that the state’s interest extended to the families in which children are raised, he could not satisfactorily answer questions from all three judges about how excluding same-sex couples from marriage advanced that interest.  If you let gay people adopt, asked Posner, why not let their children have the same benefits?

Fisher’s response – that same-sex couples can only get children intentionally and don’t need to be “nudged” into marrying – seem puny.  Posner also pointed out the large number of children in foster care who needed adoptive parents and asked whether letting same-sex couples marry would lead to more adoptions.  Fisher disclaimed knowledge about such a result, but Posner, the law-and-economics expert, suggested that it is less expensive for married couples to adopt than for unmarried couples to adopt precisely because of all the benefits that accompany marriage.

Judge Hamilton, seizing upon an argument in Indiana’s brief claiming that the state’s marriage statute did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, seemed to throw Fisher into a panic by suggesting that the state was conceding that its law classified based on sex and was thus subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.  Virtually all judges seem to agree that if heightened scrutiny is used, bans on same-sex marriage are doomed to fail.

Samuelson did not fare much better arguing for Wisconsin.  He contended that the due process clause was a source of negative rights but not positive rights, and asked the court to consider whether Wisconsin is required to have a marriage law at all.  He suggested that if Wisconsin repealed its marriage law and substituted domestic partnerships, nobody would have cause for complaint because, in his view, the Due Process Clause does not contain an affirmative right to marry.  He argued that all the prior Supreme Court marriage cases were concerned with negative rights, not affirmative rights, in that the Court was striking down instances in which the state had interfered with existing marriage rights.  The judges did not seem impressed by this argument and gave it short shrift.

During Samuelson’s argument on behalf of Wisconsin, Judge Posner really cut to the chase.  As Samuelson blundered on about tradition and “Burkean values” Posner finally asked, “Isn’t this based on hate?” and referred to the history of “savage discrimination” against gay people, including discrimination by government.  Samuelson countered by pointing out that Wisconsin was the first state to pass a statute banning discrimination because of sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations.  Posner responded, “Why draw the line there?”  Why not cease discriminating in marriage?  To Samuelson’s response that this was a matter of “legislative policy,” Posner said, “Give me a rational basis for that legislative policy,” but Samuelson could not.

What did distinguish the 7th Circuit argument from the approaches of the 10th and 4th Circuit courts of appeals, which ruled in marriage equality cases over the summer, was that the judges seemed more inclined from their questioning and comments to treat this as an Equal Protection case rather than a case about a fundamental right to marry.  They pressed the attorneys from plaintiffs — Lambda Legal’s Camilla Taylor, the Indiana ACLU’s Kenneth Falk, and the National ACLU LGBT Rights Project’s James Esseks – for some limiting principle by which to described a constitutional right to marry.  Would that endanger laws forbidding incest, first-cousin marriages, polygamy?  Esseks came back with the strongest answer, pointing to Justice Kennedy’s description of the liberty encompassed by the Due Process Clause in his opinion for the Court in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision striking down that state’s homosexual sodomy ban.  Kennedy listed the right to select a marital partner as one of the fundamental rights within the scope of constitutionally-protected liberty, and commented, to the outspoken chagrin of Justice Scalia, that homosexuals had the same liberty interest.  Scalia’s dissent asserted that once the Court had eliminated tradition and moral disapproval as grounds for adverse treatment of gay people, there seemed no basis to deny gay people the right to marry.  His comment has been noted by many of the federal trial judges who have struck down marriage bans in recent months.

Most of the questioning for the plaintiffs’ attorneys focused on how to describe the liberty interest and where to find limiting principles for it.  Hamilton particularly suggested that equal protection provided the stronger argument for plaintiffs, since the discriminatory purpose and effect of the marriage bans was clear.  Esseks made a strong pitch for the court to use heightened scrutiny if it decided the case using an equal protection theory, but the judges seemed unreceptive.  Judge Williams suggested that the concept of “heightened scrutiny” was not helpful.  To her, the issue was whether the challenged laws caused harm, and whether there was some balancing benefit to the state that justified the harm.  Her questioning suggested that she understood the harms very well, but that attorneys for the states were unable to name any concrete benefits associated with these bans.

During Fisher’s brief rebuttal argument, Judge Posner came back to his issue of children of adoptive parents, pushing Fisher again to give a reason for denying them benefits, and asking how the marriage ban could possibly advance the state’s interests.  Do you really believe that you get less extramarital sex by pushing heterosexuals to marry, he asked.  You let all these sterile people marry, he commented.  Are they supposed to be role models for channeling procreation?  He characterized this argument as ridiculous.

Posner asked Fisher whether he read the amicus brief filed by the Family Equality Council, which was devoted to relating the stories of harms incurred by children whose parents were not allowed to marry.  Fisher claimed to have read it but not remembered it.  Posner referred to the “harrowing information” about problems created for children raised by couples forbidden to marry, the misfortunes they suffered, and asked incredulously whether Fisher was not moved by that.  He also asked whether Fisher had any empirical basis for anything he had said, in a void dripping with sarcasm.

It was hard to imagine that either of the appellant states are going to win even one vote from this panel, if the judges vote along the lines suggested by their questions and comments during the oral argument.

 

Another State Heard From on Marriage Equality – Indiana

Posted on: April 20th, 2014 by Art Leonard 1 Comment

Marriage Equality advocates in Indiana were very strategic in their litigation, holding off filing cases until after the legislature had adjourned, after kicking the question of a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage down the road another two years by passing a version of the proposed amendment that differed from that approved in the last session. A bunch of new cases were filed earlier this year, and they have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young in Indianapolis (S.D. Ind.), under the collective title of Baskin v. Bogan.

Things were proceeding as they do in these cases when suddenly an urgent need for a quick ruling arose. Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler, one of the plaintiff couples, formed an Illinois civil union in 2011 and married in Massachusetts in 2013. They have been together many years and are raising two young children together. Niki has been battling ovarian cancer since May 2009, going back and forth between active cancer and remission after treatments. On April 9, the cancer recurred from the most recent remission, and the prognosis was questionable. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to get recognition for the Quasney-Sandler marriage specifically to ensure that if Niki dies before the court can rule on the merits in this case, the state will be required to recognize Niki and Amy as married on Niki’s death certificate.

Judge Young proved receptive to this request, ruling from the bench at the end of a hearing on April 10 to issue the TRO, to last until May 8, by which time the court will hold a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction. On April 18, Judge Young issued a written opinion explaining his ruling, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54036.

Young quickly rejected the state’s argument that plaintiffs could not seek a TRO because they had not yet suffered any Article III harm that could be remedied by a restraining order, pointing out thatdig nitary harm could be sufficient where a constitutional right was at stake. Furthermore, there were already tangible harms experienced by the plaintiffs. “The Plaintiffs here have shown cognizable injuries that a TRO can remedy,” wrote Judge Young, “because Niki drives across state lines to receive treatment from a hospital that will recognize her marriage, Niki and Amy have been denied a family fitness membership, and they suffer anxiety, sadness, and stress about the non-recognition of their marriage and what that means if and when Niki succumbs to her disease.”

Referring to the “dignity” of marriage that was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision last year in U.S. v. Windsor, Young wrote that “the deprivation of the dignity of a state-sanctioned marriage is a cognizable injury under Article III.”

As to the criteria for a temporary restraining order, Young was governed by 7th Circuit precedents, requiring him to find that the plaintiffs’ chance of success on the merits is “more than negligible.” He found this easily satisfied by reference to “the wave of recent cases finding that similar state statutes and state constitutional amendments violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.” He found “particularly persuasive” two recent rulings from Ohio and Illinois involving couples where one member was suffering a fatal illness.

Turning to the state’s arguments, he rejected Indiana’s contention that all of these courts have misconstrued Windsor by imposing a federal constitutional analysis on the policy question of who can marry. Noting the Supreme Court’s citation of Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, he wrote, “The Equal Protection Clause requires states to treat people equally under the law; if the state wishes to differentiate between people and make them unequal, then it must have at least a legitimate purpose.”

As to purpose, he rejected out of hand Indiana’s argument that the state’s concern in “ameliorating the consequences of unintended children” would serve to justify excluding same-sex couples from marrying. “This philosophy of marriage,” he wrote, “does not distinguish Indiana from the wave of recent cases finding similar statutes to be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he wrote, “The court finds that this cannot be the entire rationale underlying the traditional marriage. Additionally, this philosophy is problematic in that the state of Indiana generally recognizes marriages of individuals who cannot procreate. For example, Indiana recognizes the marriages of opposite-sex couples that occurred in Florida that are well past their procreative years. This philosophy does not apply to them, so under the state’s philosophy, their marriage should not be recognized here. Further, before recognizing an out-of-state marriage on a death certificate, the state of Indiana does not inquire whether the couple had the ability to procreate unintentionally.”

Foreshadowing his likely ruling on the merits when the court decides on summary judgment down the line, Young wrote, “the court finds there will likely be insufficient evidence of a legitimate state interest to justify the singling out of same-sex marriage couples for non-recognition. The court thus finds that Plaintiffs have at least some likelihood of sucess on the merits because the ‘principal effect’ of Indiana’s statute ‘is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.'” The quoted words are from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Windsor.

Young also found that the restraining order was necessary because after-the-fact damages or alternative contractual arrangements would be insufficient to provide an adequate remedy for the harms the plaintiffs would suffer if their marriage is not recognized in the current circumstances. Indeed, they would suffer irreparable harm if the TRO is denied and Niki dies before the court can rule on the merits, and, wrote Young, “as this court and others have previously held, the state experiences no harm when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statue.” Thus, the court was willing to grant a temporary restraining order that would extend until the next hearing in this case.

Of course, this is narrow relief, focused only on the Quasney-Sandler marriage. “Should Ms. Quasney pass away in Indiana,” wrote Young, “the court orders Willian C. VanNess II, M.D., in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health and all those acting in concert, to issue a death certificate that records her marital status as ‘married’ and lists Plaintiff Amy Sandler as the ‘surviving spouse’.”

Despite the narrowness of this relief, limited to one couple, Young’s opinion communicates the likelihood that he will be ruling for the plaintiffs on the merits before very long, making Indiana the first state within the 7th Circuit to generate a ruling on marriage equality likely to go to the circuit court of appeals.

Plaintiffs in this case are represented by Barbara J. Baird, an Indianapolis attorney, pro bono attorneys from the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis, and attorneys from the Chicago and Dallas offices of Lambda Legal. The defendants include several county clerks, the state Health Commissioner, and the state Attorney General, all sued in their official capacities.

Judge Young was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton, and is the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Indiana.