14-3464 #89

Download 14-3464 #89

Post on 03-Jun-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/12/2019 14-3464 #89

    1/41

    No. 14-3464

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

    BRITTANI HENRY, et al.,

    Plaintiffs-Appellees,

    v.

    LANCE D. HIMES,

    Defendant-Appellant.

    ::

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    On Appeal from the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District

    of Ohio, Western Division

    District Court Case No. 14-cv-0129

    REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT LANCE D. HIMES, INTERIM

    DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

    MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181)

    Attorney General of Ohio

    ERIC E. MURPHY* (0083284)State Solicitor

    *Counsel of RecordBRIDGET E. COONTZ (0072919)

    Assistant Attorney General

    30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor

    Columbus, Ohio 43215

    614-466-8980; 614-466-5087 fax

    [email protected]

    Counsel for Defendant-Appellant,

    Lance D. Himes, Interim Director of

    the Ohio Department of Health

    Case: 14-3464 Document: 89 Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 1

  • 8/12/2019 14-3464 #89

    2/41

    i

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Page

    TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iiiINTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4I. THIS COURT SHOULD REJECT THE VIEW OF PLAINTIFFS (AND

    NOW OF THE KITCHEN MAJORITY) THAT THE LOWER

    COURTS MAY FREELY DISREGARDBAKER......................................... 4II. PLAINTIFFS AND THE KITCHEN MAJORITY BOTH OFFER

    MISTAKEN RATIONALES FOR HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY .................. 7A. Plaintiffs and the Kitchen majority must depart from traditional

    rules to find a fundamental right to same-sex marriage ........................ 8B. Plaintiffs cherry-pick the relevant history when arguing for a

    fundamental right to same-sex-marriage recognition ......................... 12C. Plaintiffs make conclusory arguments in support of a variety of

    different alleged liberty interests ..................................................... 15D. Plaintiffs equal-protection rationales for heightened scrutiny fare

    no better than their fundamental-rights approaches ............................ 16III. PLAINTIFFS ARGUE FOR HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY BECAUSE

    OHIO LAW SATISFIES RATIONAL-BASIS REVIEW ............................ 18IV. PLAINTIFFS WOULD TURN FACIAL CHALLENGES INTO THE

    RULE RATHER THAN THE EXCEPTION................................................ 21V. THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS MISINTERPRET THE SCOPE OF

    THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE .............................................. 24A. Procedurally, Plaintiffs have not shown that 1983 provides a

    vehicle to enforce the Full Faith and Credit Clause ............................ 24

    Case: 14-3464 Document: 89 Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 2

  • 8/12/2019 14-3464 #89

    3/41

    ii

    B. Substantively, Ohios decision not to put both of the New YorkPlaintiffs names on an amended birth certificate did not violate

    the Full Faith and Credit Clause .......................................................... 27CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 30CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    Case: 14-3464 Document: 89 Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 3

  • 8/12/2019 14-3464 #89

    4/41

    iii

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    Cases Page(s)

    Adar v. Smith,

    639 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) .......................................................passim

    Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Kentucky,

    641 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 20

    Arapahoe Cnty. Pub. Airport Auth. v. FAA,

    242 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 28

    Armour v. City of Indianapolis,

    132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012) ........................................................................................ 19

    Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

    522 U.S. 222 (1998) ............................................................................................ 28

    Baker v. Nelson,

    409 U.S. 810 (1972) .....................................................................................passim

    Bowers v. Hardwick,

    478 U.S. 186 (1986) ...................................................................................... 11, 16

    Brandenburg v. Hous. Auth.,

    253 F.3d 891 (6th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 13

    Bruni v. Cnty. of Otsego,

    192 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) ............................................................. 27

    Conn v. Gabbert,

    526 U.S. 286 (1999) ............................................................................................ 13

    Davis v. Prison Health Servs.,

    679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 16, 17

    Dennis v. Higgins,

    498 U.S. 439 (1991) ............................................................................................ 25

    Dir., Office of Workers Comp. Programs v. Newport News

    Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.,

    514 U.S. 122 (1995) ............................................................................................ 24

    Case: 14-3464 Document: 89 Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 4

  • 8/12/2019 14-3464 #89

    5/41

    iv

    Durfee v. Duke,

    375 U.S. 106 (1963) ............................................................................................ 27

    Equality Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati,

    128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997) .................................................................. 16, 17, 20

    Finstuen v. Crutcher,

    496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 26, 27

    Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles,

    493 U.S. 103 (1989) ...................................................................................... 24, 25

    Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe,

    536 U.S. 273 (2002) ............................................................................................ 26

    Goodson v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc.,443 N.E.2d 978 (Ohio 1983) .............................................................................. 23

    Graham v. Connor,

    490 U.S. 386 (1989) ............................................................................................ 13

    Griswold v. Connecticut,

    381 U.S. 479 (1965) ............................................................................................ 11

    Hardin v. Davis,

    16 Ohio Supp. 19, 1945 WL 5519 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1945) ............................ 14

    Hicks v. Miranda,

    422 U.S. 332 (1975) .............................................................................................. 4

    Howlett v. Rose,

    496 U.S. 356 (1990) ............................................................................................ 25

    In re Bonfield,

    780 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 2002) .............................................................................. 15

    In re Bosworth,No. 86AP-903, 1987 WL 14234 (Ohio Ct. App. July 16, 1987)........................ 28

    Kitchen v. Herbert,

    No. 13-4178, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir.

    June 25, 2014) ..............................................................................................passim

    Case: 14-3464 Document: 89 Filed: 07/15/2014 Page: 5

  • 8/12/2019 14-3464 #89

    6/41

    v

    Lawrence v. Texas,

    539 U.S. 558 (2003) .............................................................................. 4, 6, 11, 16

    Lofton v. Secy of Dept of Children & Family Servs.,

    358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 15

    Loving v. Virginia,

    388 U.S. 1 (1967) ................................................................................................ 10

    Lyng v. Castillo,

    477 U.S. 635 (1986) ............................................................................................ 15

    Matthews v. Lucas,

    427 U.S. 495 (1976) ............................................................................................ 18

    Mazzolini v. Mazzolini,155 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1958) ........................................................................ 13, 14

    Minnesota v. N. Secs. Co.,

    194 U.S. 48 (1904) ........................................................................................ 25, 26

    Mullins v. Oregon,

    57 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 15

    Obergefell v. Himes,

    No. 14-3057 .......................................................................................... 1, 7, 16, 17

    Peefer v. State,

    182 N.E. 117 (Ohio Ct. App. 1931) .................................................................... 14

    Pickett v. Brown,

    462 U.S. 1 (1983) ................................................................................................ 18

    Pink v. A.A.A. Highway Express, Inc.,

    314 U.S. 201 (1941) ............................................................................................ 25

    Ply