5th circuit appeal - state

8/12/2019 5th Circuit Appeal - State

1/54

No. 14-50196

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit_____________

Cleopatra DeLeon; Nicole Dimetman; Victor Holmes; Mark

Phariss,Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Rick Perry, In His Official Capacity as Goernor of the!tate of "e#as; Gre$ %&&ott, In His Official Capacity as

"e#as %ttorney General; Dai' Lakey, In His OfficialCapacity %s Commissioner Of "he Department Of !tate

Health !erices,

Defendants-Appellants._____________

On Appeal from the United States istri!t "o#rtfor the $estern istri!t of %e&as, San Antonio ivision

"ase No. 5'1(-!v-9)*_____________

APPELLANTS BRIEF_____________

Gre$ %&&ottAttorne+ eneral of %e&as

Daniel "( Ho'$e

irst Assistant Attorne+ eneral

Office of the %ttorney General

.O. /o& 1*54) " 0592A#stin, %e&as 3)311-*54)51*2 9(6-1300

)onathan *( MitchellSoli!itor eneral

+yle D( Hi$hfl

-eth +lsmannMichael P( Mrphy

Assistant Soli!itors eneral

Counsel for Defendants-Appellants

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512714288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2014


2/54

i

Certificate of Interested Persons

"o#nsel of re!ord !ertifies that the folloin persons and entities as des!riedin the fo#rth senten!e of ifth "ir!#it 7#le *).*.1 have an interest in the o#t!omeof this !ase. %hese representations are made in order that the 8#des of this "o#rt

ma+ eval#ate possile dis#alifi!ation or re!#sal.

Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Counsel

"leopatra e:eon Ni!ole imetman ;i!tor r. :aneatthe ?din eppinAndre orest Neman%kin Gmp !trass Haer .

*el' LLP

Defendants Defendants Counsel

7i!= err+ re Aott

avid :a=e+

onathan . it!hell@+le . onathan . it!hell)onathan *( MitchellCounsel for Defendants-Appellants



3/54

ii

Statement Regarding Oral Argument

%he State respe!tf#ll+ s#mits that these !onstit#tional !hallenes to %e&asBs

marriae las are s#ffi!ientl+ important to arrant oral ar#ment.



4/54

iii

Table of Contents

"ertifi!ate of Cnterested ersons ............................................................................. i

Statement 7eardin Oral Ar#ment ..................................................................... ii

%ale of A#thorities ................................................................................................v

Statement of >#risdi!tion ........................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Css#e ............................................................................................. 1

Statement of the "ase ............................................................................................. 1

S#mmar+ of the Ar#ment ..................................................................................... *

Ar#ment................................................................................................................ 5

C. %e&asBs arriae :as o Not ;iolate %he ?#al rote!tion"la#se. ................................................................................................ 6

CC.

%e&asBs arriae :as o Not ;iolate %he #e-ro!ess"la#se. .............................................................................................. **

CCC. %he laintiffsB "laims Are ore!losed /+Baker v. Nelson. ................ *)

C;.

%he laintiffsB "laims ind No S#pport Cn %he %e&t Or#di!iale!ree. ............................................................................................. (4

;C. %his "o#rt Sho#ld 7#le ?ven Cf %he S#preme "o#rt rants"ertiorari CnKitchen v. Herbert. ......................................................... ()

"on!l#sion ............................................................................................................ (9

"ertifi!ate of Servi!e............................................................................................ 40

"ertifi!ate of ?le!troni! "omplian!e .................................................................... 41



5/54

iv

"ertifi!ate of "omplian!e .................................................................................... 4*



6/54

v

Table of Autorities

Cases

A.L.A. Schechter Poultr Corp. v. !nited States,

*95 U.S. 495 19(52 ........................................................................................... (3

A"ostini v. #elton,5*1 U.S. *0( 19932 ........................................................................................... *9

Baker v. Nelson,409 U.S. )10 193*2 ....................................................................................... 5, *)

Ben-Shalo$ v. %arsh,))1 .*d 454 3th "ir. 19)92 .............................................................................. 19

Bd. of &r. of !niv. of Ala. v. 'arrett,5(1 U.S. (56 *0012 ........................................................................................... (3

Bo(ers v. Hard(ick,43) U.S. 1)6 19)62 .......................................................................................... *4

Bro(n v. Bd. of )duc.,(43 U.S. 4)( 19542 ........................................................................................... *1

Col"rove v. Battin,41( U.S. 149 193(2 ............................................................................................ (1

Cook v. 'ates,5*) .(d 4* 1st "ir. *00)2 ................................................................................ 1)

Dandrid"e v. *illia$s,(93 U.S. 431 19302 ........................................................................................... 1*

Dred Scott v. Sanford,60 U.S. (9( 1)562 ............................................................................................ **

)$p+t Div., Dep+t of Hu$an es. of r. v. S$ith,494 U.S. )3* 19902 ......................................................................................... *0



7/54

vi

#CC v. Beach Co$$c+ns, /nc.,50) U.S. (03 199(2 ...............................................................................(, 3, 1(, 13

Harris v. %cae,

44) U.S. *93 19)02 .......................................................................................... 14Haden v. Paterson,

594 .(d 150 *d "ir. *0102 ................................................................................. 3

Heller v. Doe,509 U.S. (1* 199(2 ................................................................................ (, 6, 3, 1*

Hernande0 v. obles,)55 N.?.*d 1 N.E. *0062.................................................................................. (1

Hicks v. %iranda,4** U.S. ((* 19352 .......................................................................................... *)

Hollin"s(orth v. Perr,1(( S. "t. *65* *01(2 ................................................................................. (0, ()

1ohn v. Paullin,*(1 U.S. 5)( 191(2 ............................................................................................ (0

Kitchen v. Herbert,No. 1(-413), *014 $: *)6)044 10th "ir. >#ne *5, *0142 ............... *4, *5, *6, ()

Lochner v. Ne( 2ork,19) U.S. 45 19052 ................................................................................... 5, **, (3

Lofton v. Sec+ of Dept. of Children and #a$il Servs.,(5) .(d )04 11th "ir. *0042 ............................................................................ 1)

Lovin" v. 3ir"inia,()) U.S. 1 19632 .................................................................................... 11, *0, *1

%andel v. Bradle,4(* U.S. 13( 19332 per !#riam2 ...................................................................... *)



8/54

vii

%cCullen v. Coakle,1(4 S. "t. *51) *0142 ...................................................................................... *0

%ichael H. v. 'erald D.,

491 U.S. 110 19)92 .......................................................................................... *4%orehead v. Ne( 2ork e4 rel. &ipaldo,

*9) U.S. 5)3 19(62 ........................................................................................... (3

Nat+l )ndo($ent for the Arts v. #inle,5*4 U.S. 569 199)2 ........................................................................................... 14

Nat+l Labor elations Bd. v. Noel Cannin",No. 1*-1*)1, *014 $: *))*090 U.S. >#ne *6, *0142 ....................................... (1

Nat+l Paint 5 Coatin"s Ass+n v. Cit of Chica"o,45 .(d 11*4 3th "ir. 19952................................................................................. 3

Ne( State /ce Co. v. Lieb$ann,*)5 U.S. *6* 19(*2 ........................................................................................... (5

enolds v. !nited States,9) U.S. 145 1)3)2 ............................................................................................ *0

odri"ue0 de 6ui7as v. Shearson8A$. )4press, /nc.,490 U.S. 433 19)92 ........................................................................................... *9

ust v. Sullivan,500 U.S. 13(, 19( 19912 .................................................................................... 14

Scarbrou"h v. %or"an Cnt. Bd. of )duc.,430 .(d *50 6th "ir. *0062 ............................................................................. 1)

Sch. Dist. of Abin"ton &(p. v. Sche$pp,(34 U.S. *0( 196(2 ........................................................................................... (1

See"$iller v. La3erkin Cit,5*) .(d 36* 10th "ir. *00)2 ........................................................................... *6



9/54

viii

Se$inole &ribe of #la. v. #lorida,513 U.S. 44 19962 ............................................................................................. (3

Skinner v. klaho$a e4 rel. *illia$son,

(16 U.S. 5(5 194*2 ........................................................................................... 11Steffan v. Perr,

41 .(d 633 .". "ir. 19942 .......................................................................... 3, 1)

!ll$ann v. !nited States,(50U.S. 4** 19562 ........................................................................................... *3

!nited States v. Lope0,514 U.S. 549 19952 ........................................................................................... (5

!nited States v. *indsor,1(( S. "t. *635 *01(2 ............................................................................... 9, *9-(0

!nited States. v. %endo0a,491 .*d 5(4 5th "ir. 19342 .............................................................................. (0

3arnu$ v.Brien,36( N.$.*d )6* Coa *0092 ............................................................................. )

*al$er v. Dep+t of Defense,5* .(d )51 10th "ir. 19952 .............................................................................. 1)

*ashin"ton v. Davis,4*6 U.S. **9 19362 .......................................................................................... *0

*ashin"ton v. 'lucksber",5*1 U.S. 30* 19932 ............................................................................ (, **, *(, *5

*illia$s v. Attorne 'en. of Ala.,(3) .(d 1*(* 11th "ir. *0042 .......................................................................... *6

*illia$son v. Lee ptical of kla., /nc.,(4) U.S. 4)( 19552 ........................................................................................... 15



10/54

i&

Constitutional Provisions andStatutes

U.S. "onst. art. ;.............................................................................................. 5, *(

U.S. "onst. amend. FC; G 1 ................................................................................... 6

*) U.S.". G 1*53 19))2 ....................................................................................... *)

*) U.S.". G 1*9*a212 ............................................................................................ 1

*) U.S.". G 1((1 ..................................................................................................... 1

%e&. "onst. art. C, G (* ............................................................................................ 1

%e&. am. "ode G *.0012 ..................................................................................... 1

%e&. am. "ode G 6.*042 ..................................................................................... 1

Other Authorities

/r#!e A. A!=erman,Beond Carolene Products, 9) r., &raditional %arria"e9 Still *orth Defendin",

1) /EU >. #. :. 419 *0042 ............................................................................ 16

ran=


11/54

&

$illiam N. ?s=ride, >r. H hilip . ri!=e+, 6uasi-Constitutional La(9Clear State$ent ules as Constitutional La($akin",45 ;and. :. 7ev. 59( 199*2 .............................................................................. (6

%he ederalist No. 45>ames adison2 "linton 7ossiter ed. 19612 ..................................................... 4

Sherif iris, 7oert . eore H 7+an %. Anderson, *hat /s%arria"e:, (4 .:. H #. olB+ *45 *0112 .............................................. 16

>esse raham, >onathan o#rnalof ersonalit+ and So!ial s+!holo+ 10*9 *0092 ........................................ 16-13

>onathan esse raham, *hen %oralit pposes 1ustice9Conservatives Have %oral /ntuitions &hat Liberals %a Not eco"ni0e,*0 So!ial >#sti!e 7esear!h 9) *0032 ................................................................. 16

Cnstit#te for Ameri!an ;al#es,%arria"e and the La(9 A State$ent of Principles*0062 ...................................... 16

i!hael $. !"onnell, &he Constitution and Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e,$all St. >. ar!h *1, *01(2 .............................................................................. (6

i!hael $. !"onnell, &he /$portance of Hu$ilit in 1udicial evie(9A Co$$ent on onald D(orkin+s ;%oral eadin"< of theConstitution, 65 ordham :. 7ev. 1*69 19932 .............................................. (5-(6

i!hael $. !"onnell, &he i"ht to Die and the 1urisprudence of&radition, 1993 Utah :. 7ev. 665 ................................................................. *(, *5

:a#ren!e


12/54

&i

". $riht,La( of #ederal Courts*d ed. 19302 ..................................................... *)



13/54

1

efendants-Appellants 7i!= err+, re Aott, and avid :a=e+ !ol-

le!tivel+, Ithe StateJ2 respe!tf#ll+ appeal the distri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+-

in8#n!tion order of er#ar+ *6, *014.

Statement of !urisdiction

%he distri!t !o#rt entered a preliminar+ in8#n!tion on er#ar+ *6, *014.

%he State filed a timel+ noti!e of appeal on er#ar+ *3, *014. %his "o#rt

has 8#risdi!tion to revie the order #nder *) U.S.". G 1*9*a212. %he dis-

tri!t !o#rtBs s#8e!t-matter 8#risdi!tion rested on *) U.S.". G 1((1.

Statement of te Issue

oes the o#rteenth Amendment deprive the States of their a#thorit+ to

define marriae as the #nion of one man and one omanK

Statement of te Case

Cn *005, the people of %e&as voted + a 36 per!ent to *4 per!ent marin

to amend their !onstit#tion to define marriae as Isolel+ the #nion of one

man and one oman.J %he amendment also prohiits the State and its s#-

divisions from !reatin or re!oniDin same-se& marriaes. See%e&. "onst.

art. C, G (*. %he %e&as amil+ "ode prohiits the iss#an!e of marriae li-

!enses to same-se& !o#ples. %e&. am. "ode G *.0012. Ct also provides that

ILaM marriae eteen persons of the same se& or a !ivil #nion is !ontrar+ to

the p#li! poli!+ of this state and is void,J and prohiits re!onition of o#t-

of-state same-se& marriaes or !ivil #nions./d.G 6.*042.



14/54

*

%he plaintiffs !ontend that these las !olle!tivel+, %e&asBs marriae

las2 violate the d#e-pro!ess and e#al-prote!tion !la#ses of the o#rteenth

Amendment. %he distri!t !o#rt entered a preliminar+ in8#n!tion after hold-

in that %e&asBs marriae las fail rational-asis revie and holdin, in the

alternative, that same-se& marriae #alifies as a If#ndamentalJ s#stantive-

d#e-pro!ess riht. See 7OA.1995-*04*. %he distri!t !o#rt sta+ed its order

pendin appeal. See7OA.*04*.

Summar" of te Argument

%his !ase is not ao#t hether %e&as sho#ld re!oniDe same-se& mar-

riae. Ct is ao#t the #estion of ho de!ides. %here are rational, tho#htf#l

ar#ments on oth sides of the politi!al deate ao#t hether to lealiDe

same-se& marriae. %hat deate sho#ld e alloed to !ontin#e amon voters

and ithin demo!rati!all+ ele!ted leislat#res. Under the United States

"onstit#tion, the de!ision elons to the people of %e&as and their ele!tedrepresentatives, not the federal !o#rts.

%e&asBs marriae las are rooted in a asi! realit+ of h#man

life' pro!reation re#ires a male and a female. %o people of the same se&

!annot, + themselves, pro!reate. All the ?#al rote!tion "la#se re#ires is

that %e&asBs marriae las e rationall+ related to a leitimate state interest.

%e&asBs marriae las easil+ satisf+ that standard. %he StateBs re!onition

and en!o#raement of opposite-se& marriaes in!reases the li=elihood that

nat#rall+ pro!reative !o#ples ill prod#!e !hildren, and that the+ ill do so



15/54

(

in the !onte&t of stale, lastin relationships. /+ en!o#rain the formation

of opposite-se& marriaes, the State see=s not onl+ to en!o#rae pro!reation

#t also to minimiDe the so!ietal !osts that !an res#lt from pro!reation o#t-

side of stale, lastin marriaes. /e!a#se same-se& relationships do not nat#-

rall+ prod#!e !hildren, re!oniDin same-se& marriae does not f#rther these

oals to the same e&tent that re!oniDin opposite-se& marriae does. %hat is

eno#h to s#ppl+ a rational asis for %e&asBs marriae las.

%he distri!t !o#rtBs !ontrar+ !on!l#sion rests on a misappli!ation of ra-

tional-asis revie. 7ational-asis revie does not re#ire a pre!ise means-

end fit eteen a la and its stated o8e!tives, and it does not re#ire a State

to prod#!e eviden!e that a la ill a!hieve its o8e!tives. See Heller v. Doe,

509 U.S. (1*, (*0-*1 199(2#CC v. Beach Co$$c+ns, /nc., 50) U.S. (03, (15

199(2. Nor is a State re#ired to sho that same-se& marriae ill #nder-

mine the StateBs interests in en!o#rain responsile environments for pro-

!reation it is eno#h if one !o#ld rationall+ elieve that opposite-se& mar-

riaes ill advan!e the StateBs interests in pro!reation to a reater e&tent

than same-se& marriaes. %he distri!t !o#rt never denied that one !o#ld ra-

tionall+ hold this elief.

%he distri!t !o#rtBs effort to ma=e same-se& marriae into a If#ndamen-

talJ s#stantive-d#e-pro!ess riht is e#all+ #navailin. *ashin"ton v.

'lucksber", 5*1 U.S. 30* 19932, forids the re!onition of s#!h rihts #nless

the+ are Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and traditionJand same-

se& marriae is not deepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+ and tradition. P#ite



16/54

4

the opposite' the vie of marriae deepl+ rooted in o#r histor+ and tradition

is that marriae !an e&ist onleteen one man and one oman.

inall+, %e&asBs marriae las do not !onfli!t ith an+ de!ision of the

S#preme "o#rt. %he holdins of Lovin", La(rence, and *indsor stop ell

short of re#irin same-se& marriae in all 50 States. %he plaintiffs o#ld

li=e this "o#rt to e4tendthe holdins of those !ases. /#t a !o#rt !annot e&-

tend those !ases asent a shoin that %e&asBs marriae las !onfli!t ith

the Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not presented an ar#ment ased on

the "onstit#tion. %heir distri!t-!o#rt riefin is a poli!+ ar#ment for h+

same-se& marriae sho#ld e leal, and hile the+ attempt to !reate a leal

veneer + dis!#ssin S#preme "o#rt de!isions, the+ !annot es!ape the fa!t

that %e&asBs marriae las' 12 do not !onfli!t ith an+ de!ision of the S#-

preme "o#rt *2 do not !onfli!t ith an+ lan#ae in the "onstit#tion and

(2 do not !onfli!t ith an+ lonstandin pra!ti!e or tradition.

Altho#h the "onstit#tion does not re#ire the State to permit same-se&

marriae, the "onstit#tion does provide the processto e #sed for resolvin

disareements over iss#es s#!h as same-se& marriae' federalism and demo!-

ra!+. %he ramers estalished a overnment that leaves the vast ma8orit+ of

de!isions ith the States. See%he ederalist No. 45, at *9* >ames adison2

"linton 7ossiter ed. 19612 I%he poers deleated + the proposed "onsti-

t#tion to the federal overnment, are fe and defined. %hose hi!h are to

remain in the State overnments are n#mero#s and indefinite.J2. And the

"onstit#tion imposes e&tensive s#perma8oritarian h#rdles on those ho see=



17/54

5

to !reate ne !onstit#tional rihts. SeeU.S. "onst. art. ;. Some people ma+

disli=e federalism as a means for resolvin o#r disareements, e!a#se it

permits one State to adopt poli!ies that people in other States ma+ disap-

prove. /#t the entire point of the "onstit#tionBs federalist str#!t#re is to en-

ale States and !itiDens ith different vies on important matters to !o-e&ist

o#r "onstit#tion Iis made for people of f#ndamentall+ differin vies.J

Lochner v. Ne( 2ork, 19) U.S. 45, 36 19052 ., dissentin2.

Argument

;ies on same-se& marriae are !hanin. %he+ ma+ !ontin#e to !hane.

%he+ ma+ not. %hose on oth sides of the p#li! deate elieve passionatel+

in their !a#se and see= to !onvin!e their fello !itiDens of its merits. As im-

portant as this deate is for o#r nation, its o#t!ome is not di!tated + the

"onstit#tion, and it sho#ld not e resolved + the federal !o#rts. A state does

not violate the ?#al rote!tion "la#se hen the distin!tions dran + itslas are rationall+ rooted in iolo+. %he #e ro!ess "la#se does not afford

rihts that are not deepl+ rooted in the histor+ and traditions of o#r nation.

And no de!ision of the S#preme "o#rt interpretin these !onstit#tional pro-

visions re#ires States to re!oniDe same-se& marriaes. Cndeed, the onl+

S#preme "o#rt de!ision on point holds that same-se& marriae is not a !on-

stit#tional riht.See Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. )10 193*2.

?ndin the vioro#s !ivi! deate on same-se& marriae + for!in all 50

States into a !o#rt-ordered, one-siDe-fits-all sol#tion is not the resol#tion o#r



18/54

6

"onstit#tion envisions. State re!onition of same-se& marriae simpl+ is not

a matter on hi!h the "onstit#tion spea=s. %hat does not ma=e one side of

the p#li! deate riht or ron. Ct means onl+ that the deate sho#ld !on-

tin#e. Nationide resol#tion of the same-se& marriae #estion, if and hen

it ta=es pla!e, sho#ld refle!t the hearts and minds of the people of the several

States, not the ill of the federal !o#rts.

I# Te$ass %arriage La&s 'o Not (iolate Te

E)ual Protection Clause#

%he e#al prote!tion !la#se forids a State to Iden+ to an+ person ith-in its 8#risdi!tion the e#al prote!tion of the las.J U.S. "onst. amend. FC;

G 1. %his does not re#ire a State to !onfer e#al treatment on thins that are

tr#l+ different from one another in relevant respe!ts, and the distri!t !o#rt

did not den+ that opposite-se& #nions are the onl+ t+pe of h#man relation-

ship that is ioloi!all+ !apale of prod#!in !hildren. Cnstead, the !o#rt

!laimed that %e&as has no Irational asisJ for limitin marriae to opposite-

se& !o#ples e!a#se %e&as allos infertile opposite-se& !o#ples to marr+,

and e!a#se the State has not shon that same-se& marriae ill #ndermine

the StateBs interests in pro!reation. See 7OA.1064-35 7OA.*01)-*5. %he

distri!t !o#rt misapplied rational-asis revie.

irst, rational-asis revie allos States to ena!t over-in!l#sive or #nder-

in!l#sive las. See Heller, 509 U.S. at (*1 IL"Mo#rts are !ompelled #nder

rational-asis revie to a!!ept a leislat#reBs eneraliDations even hen

there is an imperfe!t fit eteen means and ends. A !lassifi!ation does not



19/54

3

fail rational-asis revie e!a#se it is not made ith mathemati!al ni!et+ or

e!a#se in pra!ti!e it res#lts in some ine#alit+.J2 !itation and internal #o-

tation mar=s omitted2 Haden v. Paterson, 594 .(d 150, 131 *d "ir. *0102

IL7Mational asis revie allos leislat#res to a!t in!rementall+ and to pass

las that are over and #nder2 in!l#sive.J2.

Se!ond, rational-asis revie does not re#ire a State to prod#!e evi-

den!e that a la ill a!hieve its o8e!tives. See Heller, 509 U.S. at (*0 IA

State . . . has no oliation to prod#!e eviden!e to s#stain the rationalit+ of a

stat#tor+ !lassifi!ation.J2 Beach Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at (15 holdin that a

leislative de!ision Iis not s#8e!t to !o#rtroom fa!tfindin and ma+ e

ased on rational spe!#lation #ns#pported + eviden!e or empiri!al dataJ2.

%hird, rational-asis revie does not allo !o#rts to invalidate a la +

eihin eviden!e or resolvin disp#ted #estions of fa!t. %he mere e4istence

of disareement on an empiri!al #estion is eno#h to estalish a Ireasona-

l+ !on!eivale state of fa!ts that !o#ld provide a rational asis.J Beach

Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at (1( see also Nat+l Paint 5 Coatin"s Ass+n v. Cit of

Chica"o, 45 .(d 11*4, 11*3 3th "ir. 19952 IL%Mo sa+ that s#!h a disp#te e&-

istsindeed, to sa+ that one ma+ e i$a"inedis to re#ire a de!ision for

the state.J2 Steffan v. Perr, 41 .(d 633, 6)5 .". "ir. 19942 ICt is hard to

imaine a more deferential standard than rational asis.J2.

%he distri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis anal+sis violates ea!h of these pre!epts

of rational-asis revieall of hi!h have een estalished in indin S#-

preme "o#rt pre!edent. Ct !ontradi!tsHeller+ demandin a pre!ise means-



20/54

)

ends fit eteen the oal of en!o#rain responsile pro!reation and the de-

!ision to ithhold marriae from same-se& !o#ples. See7OA.*0*1 re8e!tin

the StateBs pro!reation-fo!#sed rationale e!a#se the State re!oniDes mar-

riaes involvin Ipost-menopa#sal omen, infertile individ#als, and indi-

vid#als ho !hoose to refrain from pro!reatin.J2. Ct violates Helleraain +

fa#ltin the State for failin to prod#!e Ievidentiar+ s#pportJ for its !laims.

See7OA.*019 Iefendants have not provided an+ evidentiar+ s#pport for

their assertion that den+in marriae to same-se& !o#ples positivel+ affe!ts

!hildrearin.J2.1

And it inores Beach Co$$unications + p#rportin to re-

solve disp#ted empiri!al #estions and rel+in on findins of fa!t entered +

other distri!t !o#rts. See7OA.*019 Ilaintiffs presented an a#ndan!e of

eviden!e and resear!h, !onfirmed + o#r independent resear!h, s#pportin

the proposition that the interests of !hildren are served e#all+ + same-se&

parents and opposite-se& parents.J2 #otin 3arnu$ v.Brien, 36( N.$.*d

)6*, )99 Coa *00922. %he distri!t !o#rt never so m#!h as mentionedHeller

or Beach Co$$unications, even tho#h the State !ited ea!h !ase repeatedl+

efore the distri!t !o#rt. See7OA.1603-0). /#t the prolems ith the dis-

tri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis anal+sis o e+ond its disreard of indin S#-

preme "o#rt pre!edent.

1%he efendants did not ma=e this assertion in the distri!t !o#rt, m#!h less see= to s#p-port it ith eviden!e. %he distri!t !o#rtBs mista=en attri#tion of this ar#ment to theState is diffi!#lt to e&plain.



21/54

9

%he distri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis dis!#ssion appears to rest on a elief

that those ho oppose same-se& marriae are irrational or pre8#di!edhen

the disareements a!t#all+ arise from differen!es in val#e 8#dments and dif-

ferin vies over the ansers to disp#ted empiri!al #estions. See /r#!e A.

A!=erman, Beond Carolene Products, 9)


22/54

10

sers to these #estions, and it is that disareementnot a desire to dis-

!riminate aainst an+one or to #ndermine the instit#tion of marriaethat

#nderlies the same-se& marriae deate. Under one vie, marriae is primar-

il+ defined as a p#li! solemniDation of the m#t#al love and !ommitment e-

teen to people. or man+ ho hold this vie, the se& of the to people

involved has no relevan!e to hether a !onsens#al, lovin relationship

sho#ld #alif+ as a Imarriae.J Cndeed, from the perspe!tive of one ho

vies marriae this a+, it is eas+ to see ho there seems to e no leitimate

reason to den+ same-se& !o#ples a!!ess to the leal instit#tion of marriae.

Under the !ompetin vie, marriae is ine&tri!al+ lin=ed to the ioloi-

!al !omplementarit+ eteen men and omen. On this vie, marriae is the

!reation of a #ni#e leal #nion eteen to people ho on their on !an-

not reprod#!e #t ho toether !an e the so#r!e of ne life. or those ho

vie marriae this a+, the leal instit#tion of marriae e&ists primaril+ to

en!o#rae the orderl+ propaation of the h#man ra!e + !hannelin nat#rall+

pro!reative heteroseal a!tivit+ into stale, responsile relationships. As

orth+ a p#rpose as the p#li! affirmation of love and !ommitment is, that

aspe!t of marriae does not define the instit#tion for those ho hold this

vie.

%he pro!reation-fo!#sed vie of marriae is not as idel+ held as it on!e

as. /#t that does not ma=e it irrational. Ct has een predominant in o#r so-

!iet+ for most of its histor+, and it is refle!ted in the lan#ae often #sed +

the S#preme "o#rt to des!rie marriae, in!l#din in one of the "o#rtBs



23/54

11

seminal !ivil rihts !ases, on hi!h the plaintiffs pla!e reat eiht. See, e.".,

Lovin" v. 3ir"inia, ()) U.S. 1, 1* 19632 Iarriae is . . . f#ndamental to o#r

ver+ e&isten!e and s#rvival.J2 Skinner v. klaho$a e4 rel. *illia$son, (16

U.S. 5(5, 541 194*2 ILMarriae and pro!reation are f#ndamental to the

ver+ e&isten!e and s#rvival of the Lh#manM ra!e.J2. or those ho hold this

vie, same-se& marriae is a !ontradi!tion in terms. No e#al-prote!tion

!laim arises at all, e!a#se marriae + its ver+ nat#re re#ires the presen!e

of a man and a oman, the inherentl+ !omplementar+ and ne!essar+ #ildin

lo!=s of h#man life.

/oth of these #nderstandins of marriae are rational. And the people of

a soverein State m#st !hoose hi!h vie ill overn them. %e&ans have

!hosen the traditional vie. /+ deemin that !hoi!e irrational and #n!onsti-

t#tional, the distri!t !o#rt arroated to itself the a#thorit+ to resolve the

!omple& so!ioloi!al, philosophi!al, and politi!al #estion of the nat#re and

primar+ p#rpose of marriae. And not onl+ did the !o#rt resolve that #es-

tion, it did so + de!larin the pro!reation-!entered vie of marriae to e

irrational. %here is no asis for s#!h a r#lin.

7eardless of oneBs perspe!tive on the nat#re of marriae, the ioloi!al

fa!ts that distin#ish opposite-se& !o#ples from same-se& !o#ples 8#stif+

%e&asBs marriae las #nder rational-asis revie. Opposite-se& relation-

ships have the potential to prod#!e #ni#e e&ternalities that do not res#lt

from same-se& relationships, hi!h ma=es #ni#e re#lation of opposite-se&

relationships eminentl+ rational. As !ompared to the relative stailit+ of a



24/54

1*

marriae, seal a!tivit+ amon opposite-se& !o#ples ho are not enaed in

stale relationships is more li=el+ to res#lt in !osts that m#st e orne + so-

!iet+. Ct is a asi! fa!t of life that h#man eins are often overned + their

passions. And hen the prod#!t of those passions !an e a !hild, the StateBs

interest in steerin those passions toard a responsile and stale o#tlet

!o#ld hardl+ e stroner. Same-se& !o#ples feel passion and love for one an-

other as ell. /#t !hildren are not the immediate and dire!t res#lt. %o the

!ontrar+, the !hildren of same-se& !o#ples are enerall+ the res#lt of the

lenth+ refle!tion and finan!ial investment re#ired to see= o#t ph+si!ian-

assisted fertiliDation, s#rroate parents, or adoption. %he StateBs de!ision to

re#late opposite-se& relationships thro#h marriae flos from a re!oni-

tion of the !osts imposed on so!iet+ hen the pro!reative poer of those re-

lationships is #sed irresponsil+, not from a desire to demean or harm an+-

one.

%he o8e!tion ma+ e raised that not all opposite-se& marriaes prod#!e

!hildren. Some !o#ples are infertile some are delieratel+ !hildless. /#t ra-

tional-asis revie does not re#ire a perfe!t fit eteen means and ends

the S#preme "o#rt has so held man+ times in !ases that the distri!t !o#rt i-

nored. See, e.".,Heller, 509 U.S. at (*1Dandrid"e v. *illia$s, (93 U.S. 431,

4)5 19302 ILAM State does not violate the ?#al rote!tion "la#se merel+

e!a#se the !lassifi!ations made + its las are imperfe!t.J2. Ct is eno#h if

the State !an sho that opposite-se& relationships are more li=el+ than same-

se& relationships to prod#!e !hildrenindeed, it is eno#h if one !o#ld ra-



25/54

1(

tionall+ spe!#late that opposite-se& relationships $i"ht e more li=el+ than

same-se& relationships to prod#!e !hildren. See Beach Co$$c+ns, 50) U.S. at

(15 IL:Meislative !hoi!e Q ma+ e ased on rational spe!#lation #ns#p-

ported + eviden!e or empiri!al data.J2. %he plaintiffs do not den+ that one

!o#ld rationall+ hold this elief the+ do not even den+ that opposite-se&

!o#ples are more li=el+ than same-se& !o#ples to !reate ne offsprin. %hat

!on!edes that %e&asBs marriae las s#rvive rational-asis revie. And in all

events, the plaintiffs and the distri!t !o#rt are ron to assert that re!oniD-

in infertile or !hildless opposite-se& marriaes fails to advan!e the StateBs

interest in en!o#rain stale environments for pro!reation. /+ re!oniDin

and en!o#rain the lifelon !ommitment eteen a man and omaneven

hen the+ do not prod#!e offsprinthe State en!o#raes others ho (ill

pro!reate to enter into the marriae relationship.

Opposite-se& !o#ples often !annot help #t prod#!e offsprin, hi!h

ma=es en!o#rain the formation of stale leal #nions eteen men and

omen a #ni#el+ a!#te !on!ern for so!iet+and therefore for the State.

7e#lation and promotion of opposite-se& marriaes in!reases the li=elihood

that !hildren ill e orn into stale environments here the+ are raised +

their mother and their father. Ct is s#rel+ rational to elieve that this is ood

for the !hildrenBs ell-ein. And it is also ood for the State, e!a#se it in-

!reases the li=elihood that parents, rather than so!iet+, ill ear the !ost of

raisin these !hildren. 7e!oniDin same-se& marriae does not f#rther this

oal to the same e&tent. And opposite-se& marriae advan!es this interest



26/54

14

even hen one of the partners to the marriae is infertile or the oman is e-

+ond !hildearin +ears. /+ en!o#rain faithf#lness and monoam+ e-

teen a fertile person and an infertile opposite-se& spo#se, these marria-

eseven tho#h infertileserve to !hannel oth spo#sesB sealit+ into a

!ommitted relationship rather than toard seal ehavior that, for the fer-

tile spo#se at least, ma+ res#lt in !osts that are #ltimatel+ orne + so!iet+.

%he distri!t !o#rt ar#ed that re!oniDin same-se& marriae ill do

nothin to under$inethe StateBs interests in promotin responsile pro!rea-

tion, #t that is irrelevant hen !ond#!tin rational-asis revie. A State !an

rationall+ !on!l#de that re!oniDin same-se& marriaes ill not f#rther

those interestsor that it ill not f#rther these interests to the same e&tent

as opposite-se& marriae. :eal marriae is in some a+s a overnment s#-

sid+, and a State ma+ reserve its s#sidies for ehaviors that are most li=el+

to enerate the positive e&ternalities that the State see=s to promote. See

Nat+l )ndo($ent for the Arts v. #inle, 5*4 U.S. 569, 53* 199)2 ust v. Sul-

livan, 500 U.S. 13(, 19( 19912 overnment ma+ emplo+ sele!tive s#sidies

Ito en!o#rae !ertain a!tivities it elieves to e in the p#li! interestJ2

Harris v. %cae, 44) U.S. *93, (15 19)02 states ma+ #se I#ne#al s#sidi-

DationJ to en!o#rae Ia!tivit+ deemed in the p#li! interestJ2.

%his is not to sa+or even to s#estthat same-se& marriaes do not

enerate an+ enefits for so!iet+. Some have ar#ed, for e&ample that the

re!onition of same-se& marriae ill prod#!e e!onomi! enefits, s#!h as in-

!reasin ho#sehold ealth. See, e."., $illiam N. ?s=ride, &he Case for Sa$e-



27/54

15

Se4 %arria"e6) 1st ed. 19962. As stated aove, there are ar#ments leisla-

t#res !an !onsider in de!idin hether same-se& marriae sho#ld e leal.

/#t on rational-asis revie, it is eno#h to sho that opposite-se& marriaes

prod#!e so$eso!ietal enefits to a "reater e4tentthan same-se& marriaes

indeed, it is eno#h if one !o#ld rationall+ elieve that this $i"hte the !ase.

$hatever the enefits of same-se& marriae, there is no #estion that oppo-

site-se& marriaes prod#!e different and #ni#e so!ietal enefits related to

pro!reationand that opposite-se& marriaes advan!e those interests to a

reater e&tent than same-se& marriaes. On rational-asis revie, a State

does not violate the ?#al rote!tion "la#se + !hoosin to p#rs#e some so-

!ietal enefits over others. See *illia$son v. Lee ptical of kla., /nc., (4)

U.S. 4)(, 4)9 19552 I%he leislat#re ma+ sele!t one phase of one field and

appl+ a remed+ there, nele!tin the othersJ itho#t violatin e#al prote!-

tion2.

%his is all part and par!el of the pro!reation-fo!#sed vie of marriae.

%he State does not provide leal enefits toand impose finan!ial #rdens

li=e !omm#nit+ propert+ and spo#sal maintenan!e onmarried !o#ples

simpl+ to re!oniDe their love and !ommitment to one another. Cnstead, the

primar+ p#rpose of leal marriae in %e&as is to enerate positive e&ternali-

ties and avoid neative e&ternalities2 for so!iet+ + en!o#rain responsile

ehavior amon nat#rall+ pro!reative !o#ples, not to p#li!l+ re!oniDe the

love and !ommitment of to people. %his pro!reation-!entered perspe!tive

on marriae is ass#redl+ rational, and the vie that marriae inherentl+ re-



28/54

16

#ires a man and a oman has een a edro!= of so!iet+ for tho#sands of

+ears in ever+ !orner of the loe. $hile it is emra!ed + man+ reliio#s

people, it lon pre-dates "hristianit+ or an+ other modern reliion. And this

vie !ontin#es to e held + man+ tho#htf#l and distin#ished s!holars as

ell as millions of ordinar+ Ameri!ans. See, e."., $itherspoon Cnstit#te,%ar-

ria"e and the Public 'ood9 &en Principles*00)2, http'it.l+1D=m0al sined

+ over 30 s!holars2 Cnstit#te for Ameri!an ;al#es,%arria"e and the La(9 A

State$ent of Principles *0062, http'it.l+1?hf3# sined + more than

100 s!holars2.

%he distri!t !o#rtBs fail#re to #nderstand h+ so man+ of his fello

Ameri!ans oppose same-se& marriae sho#ld not have led the distri!t !o#rt

to de!lare their eliefs irrational. Cnstead, it sho#ld have led the !o#rt to read

some of the man+ reasoned defenses of traditional marriaenone of hi!h

the !o#rt so m#!h as a!=noleded let alone ref#ted2. See, e."., Sherif ir-

is, 7oert . eore H 7+an %. Anderson, *hat /s %arria"e:, (4 .:.

H #. olB+ *45 *0112 eore $. ent, >r., &raditional %arria"e9 Still

*orth Defendin", 1) /EU >. #. :. 419 *0042 see also >onathan esse raham, *hen %oralit pposes 1ustice9 Conservatives Have %oral /ntu-

itions &hat Liberals %a Not eco"ni0e, *0 So!ial >#sti!e 7esear!h 9), 111R1*

*0032 ILOMn the iss#e of a+ marriae it is !r#!ial that lierals #nderstand

the !onservative vie of so!ial instit#tions. "onservatives enerall+ elieve

Q that h#man eins need str#!t#re and !onstraint to flo#rish, and that so-

!ial instit#tions provide these enefits. Q %hese are not !raD+ ideas.J2 >esse



29/54

13

raham, >onathan o#rnal of ersonalit+ and So!ial s+-

!holo+ 10*9 *0092. On rational-asis revie, the plaintiffsB #rden is to

neate ever conceivable rationale that miht e offered for a laand that

re#ires them at the ver+ least2 to ref#te ever+ defense that has een offered

for traditional marriae, as ell as s!holars s#!h as


30/54

1)

e!onomi! effi!ien!+ and !ons#mer elfare others thin= it sho#ld prote!t

Ismall dealers and orth+ menJ from !ompetitive mar=et for!es. Some e-

lieve that food la sho#ld p#rs#e liertarian aims others thin= it sho#ld

promote n#trition or ens#re the ethi!al treatment of animals. eople ho

disaree over these iss#es do not !all their opponentsB vies IirrationalJ or

I#n!onstit#tional.J Cnstead, the+ re!oniDe that their opponents are pro-

!eedin from a different normative frameor= that emphasiDes !ertain val-

#es over othersand the+ f#rther re!oniDe that rational people !an disaree

over hi!h val#es sho#ld ta=e priorit+. %hose ho s#pport traditional mar-

riae deserve similar !o#rtes+ from their fello parti!ipants in the onoin

demo!rati! deate ao#t same-se& marriae.

%he distri!t !o#rt did not appl+ heihtened s!r#tin+ to the plaintiffsB

e#al-prote!tion !laims, #t the plaintiffs are li=el+ to ar#e for it. %here is

no need to remand this #estion to the distri!t !o#rt, as heihtened s!r#tin+

is impermissile for man+ reasons. irst, neither the S#preme "o#rt nor this

"o#rt has ever held that seal orientation is a Is#spe!t !lassifi!ationJ that

triers heihtened s!r#tin+, and the overhelmin eiht of appellate a#-

thorit+ re8e!ts the idea. See, e."., Cook v. 'ates, 5*) .(d 4*, 6* 1st "ir.

*00)2 Scarbrou"h v. %or"an Cnt. Bd. of )duc., 430 .(d *50, *61 6th "ir.

*0062 Lofton v. Sec+ of Dept. of Children and #a$il Servs., (5) .(d )04,

)1) 11th "ir. *0042 *al$er v. Dep+t of Defense, 5* .(d )51, )54 10th "ir.

19952 Steffan v. Perr, 41 .(d at 304.



31/54

19

Se!ond, the ar#ments for s#spe!t-!lass stat#s are (eakerno than the+

ere at the time of these appellate-!o#rt r#lins. %he politi!al infl#en!e of

the a+-rihts movement has onl+ ron sin!e the time of the man+ !o#rt

de!isions re8e!tin s#spe!t-!lass stat#s. %he movementBs man+ re!ent s#!-

!esses are ell =non. %o !ite 8#st to e&amples, "onress repealed the mil-

itar+Bs IonBt As=, onBt %ellJ poli!+, and re!entl+ the resident sined an

e&e!#tive order prohiitin seal-orientation dis!rimination + federal !on-

tra!tors. ore and more ele!ted offi!ialsin!l#din the residentare an-

no#n!in their s#pport for same-se& marriae, and Attorne+ eneral


32/54

*0

site-se& spo#se as an+one else in the State. And all persons in %e&as

reardless of their seal orientationare ineliile to marr+ a same-se&

spo#se. A la that applies e#all+ to ever+one does not dis!riminate or den+

Ie#al prote!tionJ simpl+ e!a#se some ro#p of people ants to violate it.

See %cCullen v. Coakle, 1(4 S. "t. *51), *5(4 *0142 fa!iall+ ne#tral #ffer

Done is Ineither !ontent nor viepoint ased,J even tho#h the onl+ spee!h

affe!ted o#ld !ome from one parti!#lar viepoint2 see also enolds v.

!nited States, 9) U.S. 145 1)3)2 )$p+t Div., Dep+t of Hu$an es. of r. v.

S$ith, 494 U.S. )3*, )3) 19902. %e&asBs marriae las ma+ res#lt in a dis-

parate impa!t on people of a !ertain seal orientation, #t disparate-impa!t

!laims are not !oniDale in e#al-prote!tion la. See *ashin"ton v. Davis,

4*6 U.S. **9, *4* 19362.

Lovin" v. 3ir"iniadoes not !hane the fa!t that %e&asBs marriae las

appl+ e#all+ to ever+one. Lovin"str#!= don ;iriniaBs anti-mis!eenation

la, and altho#h ;irinia defended its la + ar#in that it applied e#all+

to memers of all ra!es, the "o#rt nevertheless invalidated the stat#te e-

!a#se it !ontained an e&pli!it ra!ial !lassifi!ation. See()) U.S. at )-9. 7a!ial

!lassifi!ations are #n!onstit#tionaleven hen the stat#te p#rports to im-

pose a #niform r#leand a State !an no more defend an anti-mis!eenation

stat#te on the ro#nd that it applies to ever+one than it !o#ld defend a sere-

ation ordinan!e on these ro#nds. See Lovin", ()) U.S. at ) IL$Me re8e!t

the notion that the mere e#al appli!ationB of a stat#te !ontainin ra!ial

!lassifi!ations is eno#h to remove the !lassifi!ations from the o#rteenth



33/54

*1

AmendmentBs pros!ription of all invidio#s ra!ial dis!riminations.J2 Bro(n

v. Bd. of )duc., (43 U.S. 4)(, 495 19542 re8e!tin Iseparate #t e#al.J2.

Lovin"!onfirmed, hoever, that onlstat#tes ith ra!ial !lassifi!ations ill

enerate e#al-prote!tion prolems if the la otherise applies e#all+ to

ever+one. SeeLovin", ()) U.S. at 9 ICn these !ases, involvin distin!tions

not dran a!!ordin to ra!e, the "o#rt has merel+ as=ed hether there is

an+ rational fo#ndation for the dis!riminations, and has deferred to the is-

dom of the state leislat#res. Cn the !ase at ar, hoever, e deal ith stat-

#tes !ontainin ra!ial !lassifi!ations, and the fa!t of e#al appli!ation does

not imm#niDe the stat#te from the ver+ heav+ #rden of 8#stifi!ation hi!h

the o#rteenth Amendment has traditionall+ re#ired of state stat#tes dran

a!!ordin to ra!e.J2.

%e&asBs marriae las do not den+ the plaintiffs the e#al prote!tion of

the las. %he+ ma=e rational distin!tions for leitimate reasons, and the

?#al rote!tion "la#se does not prohiit s#!h distin!tions. %he pro!rea-

tion-!entered vie of marriae on hi!h %e&as la rests is no less rational

than the alternative vie of marriae espo#sed + the plaintiffs and the dis-

tri!t !o#rt. %he distri!t !o#rt disareed ith %e&as votersB vie of the na-

t#re and p#rposes of marriae, #t that disareement !annot s#pport a !on-

stit#tional holdin.



34/54

**

II# Te$ass %arriage La&s 'o Not (iolate Te'ue*Process Clause#

%he distri!t !o#rt held that same-se& marriae is a If#ndamentalJ !on-

stit#tional riht, #t the !o#rt admitted that there is no lan#ae in the "on-

stit#tion estalishin this riht. 7OA.*0*3. So the distri!t !o#rt relied on the

!ontroversial do!trine =non as Is#stantive d#e pro!ess.J See >ohn


35/54

*(

el of eneralit+ at hi!h the riht is defined. See id. U.S. "onst. art. ; i-

!hael $. !"onnell, &he i"ht to Die and the 1urisprudence of &radition, 1993

Utah :. 7ev. 665 ran=


36/54

*4

%here is also no stoppin point to this astra!tion mane#ver. Cf !o#rts

and litiants !an !reate a !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae + defin-

in it as part of a more eneral Iriht to marr+,J then an!ond#!t that has

een traditionall+ prohiited !an e!ome a !onstit#tional riht simpl+ + re-

definin it at a hiher level of astra!tionperhaps as part of a Iriht to e

let aloneJ or a Ifreedom not to !onform.J See Bo(ers v. Hard(ick, 43) U.S.

1)6, 199 19)62 /la!=m#n, >., dissentin2 %ichael H. v. 'erald D., 491 U.S.

110, 141 19)92 /rennan, >., dissentin2. erhaps the plaintiffs ill respond

+ sa+in that !o#rts need not ta=e the astra!tion mane#ver that far the+

sho#ld enae in astra!tion onl+ to the e&tent ne!essar+ to !onstit#tionaliDe

the rihts that the+ ant s#!h as a riht to same-se& marriae2 and no f#r-

ther. /#t that o#ld onl+ !onfirm the #tter aritrariness of their approa!h to

s#stantive d#e pro!ess.

%he %enth "ir!#it #sed the same astra!tion falla!+ in its re!ent de!ision

disapprovin UtahBs marriae las' Ct de!lared a eneraliDed Iriht to mar-

r+J to e Ideepl+ rootedJ in histor+ and tradition, and then anno#n!ed that

this Ideepl+ rootedJ riht in!l#des the riht to marr+ an+ person of oneBs

!hoi!e, in!l#din a same-se& partner. See Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 1(-413),

*014 $: *)6)044, at T11 10th "ir. >#ne *5, *0142. %he %enth "ir!#it

a!=noleded 'lucksber"Bs I!aref#l des!riptionJ re#irement, #t ar#ed

that it !o#ld disreard 'lucksber"at least in !ases involvin !hallenes to a

StateBs marriae lase!a#se some pre-'lucksber"!ases Lovin",=ablocki,

and &urner2 had Idis!#ssed the riht to marr+ at a roader level of enerali-



37/54

*5

t+.J /d.at T1*. A!!ordin to the %enth "ir!#it, those r#lins allo federal

!o#rts to inore 'lucksber" and impose same-se& marriae on the States e-

!a#se the opinions did not o o#t of their a+ to e&pli!itl+ reiterate hat the

S#preme "o#rt had alread+ held in Baker v. Nelsonthat the Iriht to mar-

r+J !an e&tend onl+ to opposite-se& !o#ples. %hat is not a valid e&!#se for

ref#sin to follo the S#preme "o#rtBs instr#!tions in 'lucksber". %he dis-

!#ssion of the Iriht to marr+J inLovin",=ablocki, and &urnerpro!eeded in

eneral terms e!a#se no one had ar#ed or even tho#ht2 that this riht

!o#ld e&tend to same-se& !o#plesnot e!a#se the 8#sti!es ere invitin f#-

t#re !o#rts to impose same-se& marriae on the States. No one !ontends that

Lovin", =ablocki, or &urner estalished a !onstit#tional riht to same-se&

marriae, hi!h means that an+ dis!#ssion of the Iriht to marr+J in those

!ases $ust e interpreted to refer onl+ to opposite-se& marriaethe onl+

t+pe of ImarriaeJ that as =non to e&ist at the time of those de!isions.

And even if the %enth "ir!#it ere !orre!t to find sinifi!an!e in the fa!t

thatLovin",=ablocki, and &urnerdes!ried the Iriht to marr+J in eneral-

iDed terms, 'lucksber"p#t an end to the past pra!ti!e of #sin astra!tion to

invent If#ndamental rihtsJ that have no asis in !onstit#tional te&t or his-

tori!al pra!ti!e. See 'lucksber", 5*1 U.S. at 3*0, 3*5 !"onnell, &he i"ht to

Die and the 1urisprudence of &radition, 1993 Utah :. 7ev. 665. One !annot

disreard the S#preme "o#rtBs re8e!tion of a methodolo+ + pointin to

earlier opinions that deplo+ the rep#diated methodolo+.



38/54

*6

%he %enth "ir!#it also invo=ed La(renceas an e&!#se to inore 'lucks-

ber", #tLa(rencedid not estalish a f#ndamental liert+ interest and did not

appl+ heihtened s!r#tin+ as even the %enth "ir!#it a!=noleded2. See

Kitchen, *014 $: *)6)044, at T*0 See"$iller v. La3erkin Cit, 5*) .(d

36*, 331 10th "ir. *00)2 ILNMohere inLa(rencedoes the "o#rt des!rie

the riht at iss#e in that !ase as a f#ndamental riht or a f#ndamental liert+

interestJ2see also *illia$s v. Attorne 'en. of Ala., (3) .(d 1*(*, 1*(6 11th

"ir. *0042. La(rencetherefore ives no leverae to the plaintiffsB efforts to

ma=e same-se& marriae into a f#ndamental riht s#8e!t to heihtened s!r#-

tin+. %he %enth "ir!#itBs opinion also leads to the staerin !on!l#sion that

everrestri!tion on the riht to marr+ m#st e s#8e!t to stri!t s!r#tin+. Ct is

not !lear ho other lonstandin restri!tions on the riht to marr+ !o#ld s#r-

vive that standardand the %enth "ir!#it did not e&plain ho the+ !o#ld.

inall+, the distri!t !o#rt and the %enth "ir!#itBs approa!h to Is#stan-

tive d#e pro!essJ violates Arti!le ; of the "onstit#tion. ?a!h of their r#lins

!reates a !onstit#tional riht that has no te&t#al asis in the do!#ment, see

7OA.*0*3 IL%Mhe riht to marr+ is not e&pli!itl+ mentioned in the te&t of

the "onstit#tionJ2, and that is not Ideepl+ rooted in this NationBs histor+

and tradition.J Cn doin this, the distri!t !o#rt and the %enth "ir!#it are #s-

in Is#stantive d#e pro!essJ to enfor!e rihts that some 8#des elieve

shoulde prote!ted + the "onstit#tion, #t that la!= s#ffi!ient pop#lar s#p-

port to e !odified as an Arti!le ; amendment to the "onstit#tion. Eet Arti-

!le ; prote!ts the opponents of same-se& marriaeand the opponents of all



39/54

*3

novel and proposed I!onstit#tionalJ rihts+ imposin e&tensive s#per-

ma8oritarian h#rdles in the path of those ho ish to remove iss#es li=e

same-se& marriae from the politi!al pro!ess. %he distri!t !o#rt and the

%enth "ir!#it alloed the s#pporters of same-se& marriae to !ir!#mvent

those !onstit#tional prote!tions + de!larin that same-se& marriae has no

e!ome a !onstit#tional rihteven tho#h ever+one arees that same-se&

marriae as not a !onstit#tional riht hen the o#rteenth Amendment

as ratified and remains in!apale of otainin the s#perma8oritarian assent

that Arti!le ; re#ires. See !ll$ann v. !nited States, (50 U.S. 4**, 4*)

19562 INothin ne !an e p#t into the "onstit#tion e&!ept thro#h the

amendator+pro!ess.J2.

:a+ers and 8#des sometimes pro!eed as if !onstit#tional provisions e&-

ist onl+ to limit the poer of the politi!al ran!hes. /#t the "onstit#tionBs

allo!ation of poers ne!essaril+ limits the interpretive a#thorit+ of the 8#di-

!iar+, and there is a point at hi!h IinterpretationJ !rosses the line into

!onstit#tional amendment + 8#di!ial de!ree. 7easonale 8#rists !an deate

e&a!tl+ here this o#ndar+ falls, #t it is s#rel+ the !ase that a s#stantive

riht to marr+ a same-se& partnerhi!h has no te&t#al asis hatsoever in

the "onstit#tion and no histori!al pedireeis a de fa!to !onstit#tional

amendment imposed #nder the #ise of !onstit#tional Iinterpretation.J



40/54

*)

III#Te Plaintiffs Claims Are Foreclosed B"

Ba+er ,# Nelson#

?ven if one elieves that the S#preme "o#rt sho#ld #ltimatel+ re#ire

the States to permit same-se& marriaes, the distri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+ in-

8#n!tion sho#ld still e va!ated e!a#se Baker v. Nelson remains a indin

pre!edent on this iss#e. Cn Baker, the innesota S#preme "o#rt re8e!ted a

!laim of a riht to same-se& marriae #nder the federal !onstit#tion. 409 U.S.

)10. On appeal, a #nanimo#s U.S. S#preme "o#rtthree +ears afterLovin"

v. 3ir"iniaheld that a !laimed !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae did

not even present a s#stantial federal #estion. /d. %his =ind of s#mmar+

disposition as !ommon hen, prior to 19)), the S#preme "o#rt as re-

#ired to hear all appeals from state s#preme !o#rt r#lins presentin federal

!onstit#tional #estions. See*) U.S.". G 1*53 19))2. Ct is ell-estalished

that this =ind of ILsM#mmar+ disposition of an appeal, . . . either + affir-

man!e or + dismissal for ant of a s#stantial federal #estion, is a disposi-

tion on the $erits.J Hicks v. %iranda, 4** U.S. ((*, (44 19352 #otin ".

$riht, :a of ederal "o#rts 495 *d ed. 19302 emphasis added22. Cndeed,

the distri!t !o#rt a!=noleded that s#mmar+dispositions + the S#preme

"o#rt are Ipre!edential and indin on loer !o#rts.J 7OA.*009 !itin

%andel v.Bradle, 4(* U.S. 13(, 136 19332 per !#riam22. /#t it held that

Is#se#ent do!trinal and so!ietal developments sin!e 193* !ompel this

"o#rt to !on!l#de that the s#mmar+ dismissal in Baker is no loner ind-

in.J 7OA.*009.



41/54

*9

ederal distri!t !o#rts have no a#thorit+ to de!lare that a r#lin of the

S#preme "o#rt has een overr#led sub silentio+ later Ido!trinal develop-

ments.J See odri"ue0 de 6ui7as v. Shearson8A$. )4press, /nc., 490 U.S. 433,

4)4 19)92 ICf a pre!edent of this "o#rt has dire!t appli!ation in a !ase, +et

appears to rest on reasons re8e!ted in some other line of de!isions, the "o#rt

of Appeals sho#ld follo the !ase hi!h dire!tl+ !ontrols, leavin to this

"o#rt the preroative of overr#lin its on de!isions.J2 A"ostini v. #elton,

5*1 U.S. *0(, *(3-() 19932 same2. %here is no do#t thatBakeris Ithe !ase

hi!h dire!tl+ !ontrols,J as it involved pre!isel+ the same iss#e presented +

the plaintiffs in this !ase. %he distri!t !o#rt did not present an ar#ment to

the !ontrar+. Cndeed, the distri!t !o#rt did not !ite or a!=nolede the S#-

preme "o#rtBs instr#!tions inodri"ue0 de 6ui7asandA"ostinieven tho#h

oth !ases ere !ited and e&plained in detail in the StateBs rief. %he plain-

tiffs also inored the StateBs relian!e on odri"ue0 de 6ui7asand A"ostini

apparentl+ ass#min that the S#preme "o#rtBs e&pli!it instr#!tions in those

!ases !an e inored so lon as there are opinions from other federal distri!t

!o#rts inorin those !ases. See7OA.13*3-*9.

?ven if one ere to entirel+ inore odri"ue0 de 6ui7asand A"ostinias

the distri!t !o#rt didthe distri!t !o#rt as ron to assert that *indsor

overr#led or even #ndermined Baker. Cf an+thin, *indsorreinfor!ed Baker

+ emphasiDin the need to safe#ard the StatesB Ihistori! and essential a#-

thorit+ to define the marital relationJ free from Ifederal intr#sion.J 1(( S.

"t. at *69* see also id.at *6)9-90 I/+ histor+ and tradition the definition



42/54

(0

and re#lation of marriae . . . has een treated as ein ithin the a#thorit+

and realm of the separate States.J2. Ct as pre!isel+ because the *indsor

"o#rt rearded marriae la as Ia virt#all+ e&!l#sive provin!e of the StatesJ

that it deemed OABs ref#sal to re!oniDe Ne Eor=Bs de!ision to permit

same-se& marriae an impermissile Ifederal intr#sion on state poer.J /d.

at *6)0, *69* internal #otation mar=s omitted2.

%he distri!t !o#rt also erred + s#estin thatHollin"s(orth v. Perr, 1((

S. "t. *65* *01(2, #ndermines Baker. See7OA.*010. Appellate 8#risdi!tion

m#st e&ist beforean appellate !o#rt !an even !onsider hether a s#stantial

federal #estion e&ists. See1ohn v. Paullin, *(1 U.S. 5)(, 5)5 191(2 ILCMf Q

its appellate 8#risdi!tion as not properl+ invo=ed, no ederal #estion as

efore it for de!ision.J2 !nited States. v. %endo0a, 491 .*d 5(4, 5(6 5th

"ir. 19342 des!riin appellate 8#risdi!tion as a threshold iss#e2. /e!a#se

the S#preme "o#rt held inHollin"s(orththat the petitioners la!=ed standin

to appeal, the "o#rt la!=ed a#thorit+ to opine on hether the plaintiffs had

presented a s#stantial federal #estion.

inall+, even if post-Baker S#preme "o#rt r#lins have estalished

that allein a !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae no presents a

Is#stantialJ federal #estion, no post-Bakerde!ision has overr#ledBakerBs

!on!l#sion that same-se& marriae is not a !onstit#tional riht. &hatholdin

on the merits remains indin on ever+ federal !o#rt, and the distri!t !o#rt

provided no 8#stifi!ation for disreardin it.



43/54

(1

I(# Te Plaintiffs Claims Find No Su--ort InTe Te$t Or .istor" Of Te FourteentAmendment#

%he plaintiffsB and the distri!t !o#rtBs interpretation of the o#rteenth

Amendment !ontradi!ts not onl+ the oriinal #nderstandin of the amend-

ment #t also more than a !ent#r+ of post-ratifi!ation histor+. See, e."., Her-

nande0 v. obles, )55 N.?.*d 1, ) N.E. *0062 ILCMt as an a!!epted tr#th

for almost ever+one ho ever lived, in an+ so!iet+ in hi!h marriae e&isted,

that there !o#ld e marriaes onl+ eteen parti!ipants of different se&.J2.

Eet the distri!t !o#rt !ompletel+ inored this defe!t in the plaintiffsB !laim.

Some ma+ elieve that 8#des sho#ld entirel+ inore histor+ hen interpret-

in !onstit#tional provisions. /#t e find it hard to elieve that an+ !o#rt

o#ld a!!ept the notion that histor+ is irrelevant to !onstit#tional interpreta-

tion no 8#rist of hi!h e are aare has ever espo#sed s#!h a vie. See Sch.

Dist. of Abin"ton &(p. v. Sche$pp, (34 U.S. *0(, *94 196(2 /rennan, >.,

!on!#rrin2 IL%Mhe line e m#st dra eteen the permissile and the im-

permissile is one hi!h a!!ords ith histor+ and faithf#ll+ refle!ts the #n-

derstandin of the o#ndin athers.J2 Col"rove v. Battin, 41( U.S. 149, 136

193(2 arshall, >., dissentin2 I$hen a histori!al approa!h is applied to

the iss#e at hand, it !annot e do#ted that the ramers envisioned a 8#r+ of

1* hen the+ referred to trial + 8#r+.J2 Nat+l Labor elations Bd. v. Noel

Cannin", No. 1*-1*)1, *014 $: *))*090, at T9 U.S. >#ne *6, *0142

I%here is a reat deal of histor+ to !onsider here.J2.



44/54

(*

erhaps the plaintiffs ill a!=nolede that the histor+ !o#nts as a stri=e

aainst their proposed interpretation of the o#rteenth Amendment, #t ill

ar#e that this is o#teihed + other !onsiderations. %he prolem ith that

approa!h is that there is nothin else that !o#ld estalish a !onstit#tional

riht to same-se& marriae. %here is no te&t#al ar#ment on hi!h to rel+

the o#rteenth Amendment re#ires Id#e pro!essJ not Id#e s#stan!eJ2

and marriae las ased on rational distin!tions that appl+ e#all+ to ever+-

one do not den+ the Ie#al prote!tion of the las.J And none of the S#-

preme "o#rt de!isions plaintiffs !ite estalishes a !onstit#tional riht to

same-se& marriae. %he holdins ofLovin",La(rence, and *indsorstop ell

short of re#irin same-se& marriae in all 50 States. %he plaintiffs o#ld

li=e this "o#rt to e4tendthe holdins of those !ases, #t a !o#rt !annot e&-

tend those holdins asent a shoin that %e&asBs marriae las !onfli!t

ith the Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not presented an+ ar#ment

ased on the "onstit#tion itself. or all of their dis!#ssion of S#preme "o#rt

!ases and do!trinal 8aron, the plaintiffs !annot es!ape the fa!t that %e&asBs

marriae las' 12 do not !onfli!t ith an+ de!ision of the S#preme "o#rt

*2 do not !onfli!t ith an+ lan#ae in the "onstit#tion and (2 do not !on-

fli!t ith an+ lonstandin pra!ti!e or tradition. Cndeed, the plaintiffs do not

even ar#e that an+ s#!h !onfli!t e&ists.

Cn liht of all of this, ho !an the distri!t !o#rt !on!l#de that %e&asBs

marriae las are un-constitutionalK One possiilit+ is to rel+ on the fa!t that

past S#preme "o#rt 8#sti!es have een illin to !reate ne !onstit#tional



45/54

((

rihts itho#t an+ te&t#al arrant in the "onstit#tion and itho#t an+ asis

in lonstandin pra!ti!e or tradition.Lochner v. Ne( 2orkis the paradim for

this approa!h to 8#dinand hile Lochner has een rep#diated, the S#-

preme "o#rt has iss#ed other Lochner-t+pe de!isions that have not een

overr#led. See >ohn . 9*0

193(2. erhaps the plaintiffs ill !ontend that #ntil the S#preme "o#rt

overr#les ever+ last one of its Lochner-es#e r#lins, the federal !o#rts have

free rein to em#late LochnerBs methodolo+ + p#shin aside demo!rati!all+

ena!ted leislation in the name of rihts that have no te&t#al footin in the

do!#ment #t that 8#des nevertheless elieve shoulde prote!ted from le-

islative interferen!e.

%his t+pe of ar#ment !onf#ses a loer !o#rtBs d#t+ to obe the decisions

of the S#preme "o#rt ith a d#t+ to e$ulate the $ethodolo" of livin-

!onstit#tionalismand to e&tend that methodolo+ into ne domains.

$hen the S#preme "o#rt #ses the do!trine of s#stantive d#e pro!ess to

n#llif+ demo!rati!all+ ena!ted leislation, those de!isions m#st e respe!ted

and oe+ed, #t the+ are not a li!ense for federal !o#rts to e&pand this ate&-

t#al do!trine into ne areas. Otherise, there is no need to sho that a pro-

posed !onstit#tional riht to same-se& marriae has an+ pediree e+ond the

s#pport that it !#rrentl+ en8o+s amon federal 8#des. %his is ho the plain-

tiffs have ar#ed their !ase from the o#tset' same-se& marriae sho#ld e a

!onstit#tional riht simpl+ e!a#se de!isions from other federal !o#rts s#p-



46/54

(4

port that ideanot e!a#se %e&asBs marriae las !onfli!t ith !onstit#-

tional te&t.

%hat approa!h to s#stantive d#e pro!ess destro+s not onl+ pop#lar sov-

ereint+ #t also the idea of a overnment of las and not of men. %he "on-

stit#tion !annot e !haned thro#h !o#rt de!isions, +et the distri!t !o#rtBs

reasonin fails to a!=nolede an!onstit#tional limits on the interpretive

poers of the 8#di!iar+. Cf that is ho o#r 8#di!ial s+stem operates, then sov-

ereint+ resides not in the people, not in the offi!ials the+ ele!t or the las

those offi!ials pass, and not even in the te&t of the "onstit#tion, #t in the

federal 8#di!iar+a 8#di!iar+ that derives its poers not from the !onsent of

the overned, #t from the 8#desB on eliefs ao#t hat moralit+ and 8#s-

ti!e re#ire.

(#

Legali/ation Of Same*Se$ %arriage

Troug 'emocratic Processes Is Far

Preferable To Legali/ation Troug !udi*cial 'ecree#

?ven memers of this "o#rt ho elieve that the 8#di!iar+ has the po(er

to re#ire the States to adopt same-se& marriae sho#ld nevertheless refrain

from doin so and allo the demo!rati! deate on same-se& marriae to !on-

tin#e in the States.

irst, same-se& marriae has not e&isted lon eno#h to enerate reliale

data reardin its effe!ts. Alloin the States to de!ide hether and for ho

lon2 to pro!eed ith same-se& marriae ill help poli!+ma=ers determine



47/54

(5

hether it is in fa!t ood poli!+. "o#rt-ordered same-se& marriae ill for-

ever estalish a !onstit#tional r#le, ma=in it harder to st#d+ the effe!ts of

same-se& marriae e!a#se it ill no loner e possile to !ompare o#t-

!omes in the States that permit the pra!ti!e ith o#t!omes in the other

States2, and disalin leislat#res from !hanin !o#rse if it t#rns o#t that

same-se& marriae has some neative or #nintended side effe!ts. %his is one

of the prin!ipal reasons that !onstit#tional federalism e&istsand it o#ld

e fr#strated + a nationide r#le re#irin same-se& marriae. See Ne(

State /ce Co. v. Lieb$ann, *)5 U.S. *6*, (11 19(*2 /randeis, >., dissentin2

ICt is one of the happ+ in!idents of the federal s+stem that a sinle !o#ra-

eo#s State ma+, if its !itiDens !hoose, serve as a laorator+ and tr+ novel

so!ial and e!onomi! e&periments itho#t ris= to the rest of the !o#ntr+.J2

!nited States v. Lope0, 514 U.S. 549, 5)1 19952 @enned+, >., !on!#rrin2

IL%Mhe theor+ and #tilit+ of o#r federalism are revealed, for the States ma+

perform their role as laoratories for e&perimentation to devise vario#s sol#-

tions here the est sol#tion is far from !lear.J2. Css#es are often more !om-

ple& than 8#des and la+ers thin=, and their leal trainin ives them no

!omparative advantae in resolvin the !omple& val#e 8#dments and empir-

i!al #estions that o into de!idin #estions s#!h as hether same-se& mar-

riae sho#ld e leal. Seei!hael $. !"onnell, &he /$portance of Hu$ilit

in 1udicial evie(9 A Co$$ent on onald D(orkin+s ;%oral eadin"< of the

Constitution, 65 ordham :. 7ev. 1*69, 1*9* 19932 ILAMn essential element

of responsile 8#din is a respe!t for the opinions and 8#dments of others,



48/54

(6

and a illinness to s#spend elief, at least provisionall+, in the !orre!tness

of oneBs on opinions.J2.

Se!ond, same-se& marriae o#ld find more p#li! a!!eptan!e and leit-

ima!+ if it ere lealiDed + demo!rati!all+ ele!ted leislat#res rather than

imposed + a 8#di!ial order. Seei!hael $. !"onnell, &he Constitution and

Sa$e-Se4 %arria"e, $all St. >. ar!h *1, *01(2, on.s8.!om1m=nE/

I"hane that !omes thro#h the politi!al pro!ess has reater demo!rati!

leitima!+.J2. As one of the leadin a!ademi! proponents of same-se& mar-

riae has e&plained'

Cn a representative demo!ra!+ s#!h as o#rs, most important po-liti!al de!isions sho#ld e made + the politi!al ran!hes, pri-maril+ "onress and se!ondaril+ the ?&e!#tive. >#di!ial reviein a demo!ra!+ is e&!eptional and sho#ld e deplo+ed + #ne-le!ted 8#des onl+ hen there is a !lear in!onsisten!+ eteen astat#te or re#lation and the "onstit#tion.

$illiam N. ?s=ride, >r. H hilip . ri!=e+, 6uasi-Constitutional La(9 Clear

State$ent ules as Constitutional La($akin", 45 ;and. :. 7ev. 59(, 6(0

199*2 footnotes omitted2.

inall+, the 8#di!ial imposition of same-se& marriae o#ld reinfor!e

per!eptions of the federal 8#di!iar+ as a politi!al instit#tion that !reates and

enfor!es !onstit#tional rihts a!!ordin to so!ietal trends. %his is a daner-

o#s path to ta=eeven for those ho elieve that same-se& marriae is ood

poli!+. Cf a riht to same-se& marriae !an e !onstit#tionaliDed + 8#di!ial

de!ree, then almost an+ poli!+ !an e!ome !onstit#tionaliDed thro#h the

!o#rts. %hat ill !a#se interest ro#ps to in!rease their demands for 8#des



49/54

(3

ho ill impose their preferred poli!ies from the en!h, and the alread+-

d+sf#n!tional 8#di!ial-!onfirmation pro!ess ill e!ome f#rther poisoned as

ideoloi!al !onformit+ overrides !onsiderations of leal ailit+. Cndeed, 8#-

rists ho envision a modest or restrained role for the 8#di!iar+ in resolvin

o#r nationBs disp#tess#!h as Oliver $endell


50/54

()

pro!essJ is severed from histor+ and traditionas in the distri!t !o#rtBs r#l-

inthen there is no a+ to !ontrol ho it ill e #sed + f#t#re !o#rts.

(I# Tis Court Sould Rule E,en If Te

Su-reme Court 0rants Certiorari In1itcen ,# .erbert#

Ct is possile that the S#preme "o#rt ill rant !ertiorari in Kitchen v.

Herbert, *014 $: *)6)044, efore this "o#rt de!ides the appeal. Cf that

happens, the State respe!tf#ll+ re#ests that this "o#rt nevertheless r#le

promptl+ on the appeal and not sta+ the pro!eedins. %he S#preme "o#rtBs

!onsideration of these iss#es ill enefit from a tho#htf#l opinion from this

"o#rt, even if this "o#rt disarees ith the StateBs ar#ments. And the dis-

tri!t !o#rtBs preliminar+ in8#n!tion aainst the StateBs marriae laseven

tho#h it has een sta+edis a !ontin#in affront to the StateBs sovereint+

and its lealit+ sho#ld e resolved as soon as possile. inall+, there is no

#arantee thatKitchenill prod#!e a r#lin on the merits, as there are 8#ris-

di!tional iss#es l#r=in in that !ase and the 8#sti!es ma+ de!ide to avoid the

merits as the+ did inHollin"s(orth v. Perr, 1(( S."t. *65*.

Ct is also !r#!ial that this "o#rt !orre!t the distri!t !o#rtBs rational-asis

anal+sis. Ct has e!ome all too !ommon for federal distri!t !o#rts to misappl+

the rational-asis standard, either + demandin that a State s#pport its las

ith eviden!e, or + re#irin a pre!ise means-end fit eteen the la and

the StateBs asserted oal. Ct o#ld e a mista=e for this "o#rt to allo the

fa#lt+ rational-asis anal+sis in the distri!t !o#rtBs opinion to standeven if



51/54

(9

one thin=s the S#preme "o#rt is li=el+ to resolve the same-se& marriae iss#e

+ the end of its ne&t term.

Conclusion

%he preliminar+ in8#n!tion sho#ld e va!ated, and the !ase remanded

ith instr#!tions to enter 8#dment for the defendants.

7espe!tf#ll+ s#mitted.

Gre$ %&&ottAttorne+ eneral of %e&as

Daniel "( Ho'$eirst Assistant Attorne+ eneral

s >onathan . it!hell)onathan *( MitchellSoli!itor eneral

+yle D( Hi$hfl-eth +lsmann

Michael P( MrphyAssistant Soli!itors eneral

Office of the %ttorney General.O. /o& 1*54) " 0592A#stin, %e&as 3)311-*54)51*2 9(6-1300




52/54

40

Certificate of Ser,ice

C !ertif+ that this do!#ment has een filed ith the !ler= of the !o#rt andserved + ?" on >#l+ *), *014, #pon'

/arr+ Alan "hasnoffaniel !Neel :ane, >r.atthe ?din eppin%kin Gmp !trass Haer . *el', L(L(P((00 "onvent Street, S#ite 1600Nations/an= laDaSan Antonio, %F 3)*05

>essi!a . $eisel%kin Gmp !trass Haer . *el', L(L(P(

*0*9 "ent#r+ ar=, ?., S#ite *400:os Aneles, "A 90063-0000

i!hael . "oole+Andre orest Neman%kin Gmp !trass Haer . *el', L(L(P(1300 a!ifi! Aven#e, S#ite 4100allas, %F 35*04

s >onathan . it!hell)onathan *( Mitchell




53/54

41

Certificate of Electronic Com-liance

"o#nsel also !ertifies that on >#l+ *), *014, this rief as transmitted tor. :+le $. "a+!e, "ler= of the United States "o#rt of Appeals for the ifth"ir!#it, via the !o#rtBs "?" do!#ment filin s+stem,

https'e!f.!a5.#s!o#rts.ov."o#nsel f#rther !ertifies that' 12 re#ired priva!+ reda!tions have eenmade, /th Cir(R( *5.*.1( *2 the ele!troni! s#mission is an e&a!t !op+of the paper do!#ment, /th Cir(R( *5.*.1 and (2 the do!#ment has eens!anned ith the most re!ent version of S+mante! ?ndpoint rote!tion andis free of vir#ses.

s >onathan . it!hell

)onathan *( MitchellCounsel for Defendants-Appellants



54/54

CERTIFICATE OF CO%PLIANCE

$ith %+pe-;ol#me :imitation, %+pefa!e 7e#irements,and %+pe-St+le 7e#irements

1. %his rief !omplies ith the t+pe-vol#me limitation of ed. 7. App. .(*a232/2 e!a#se'

LFM this rief !ontains 9609 ords, e&!l#din the parts of the riefe&empted + ed. 7. App. . (*a232/2iii2, or

L M this rief #ses a monospa!ed t+pefa!e and !ontains Lstate then#mer ofM lines of te&t, e&!l#din the parts of the rief e&empted + ed. 7.App. . (*a232/2iii2.

*. %his rief !omplies ith the t+pefa!e re#irements of ed. 7. App. .(*a252 and the t+pe-st+le re#irements of ed. 7. App. . (*a262 e!a#se'

LFM this rief has een prepared in a proportionall+ spa!ed t+pefa!e#sin i!rosoft $ord for a! *011, version 14.4.( in ?#it+ 14-point t+pe-fa!e, or

L M this rief has een prepared in a monospa!ed t+pefa!e #sinLstate name and version of ord pro!essin proramM ith Lstate n#mer of!hara!ters per in!h and name of t+pe st+leM.

s >onathan . it!hell)onathan *( MitchellCounsel for Defendants-Appellants


5th circuit appeal - state

Documents