14-3464 #89

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