User:Psiphiorg/lawsuits page

This is a copy of just the content from http://www.marriageequality.org/lawsuits, tracked here so as to note what items change over time.

71 Lawsuits

Updated 7 September 2013 • Send questions and comments to Ned Flaherty:

NFlaherty@MarriageEquality.org.


 * 1) Alaska On 24 September 2012, in Deborah Harris v. Alaska, Lambda Legal filed suit because Alaska denies survivor benefits to same-gender couples.
 * 2) Arkansas #1 On 2 July 2013, in Kendall Wright et al. v. AR Governor Michael Beebe et al., 11 same-gender couples filed suit in a Pulaski County court.  Amendments were filed on 21 July, 5 August, and 15 August.  The plaintiffs seek to overturn the AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, the state law banning same-gender civil marriage, and the federal law allowing states to ignore same-gender marriages from other states, and they also seek parental rights, birth certificate names, insurance, and other benefits.
 * 3) Arkansas #2 On 15 July 2013, in Rita & Pam Jernigan et al. v. Crane et al., a federal court lawsuit was filed for 2 unmarried female couples and 1 already married male couple who seek same-gender civil marriages in AR.
 * 4) Arizona On 20 July 2010, in Joseph Diaz, et al., v. Janice Brewer, et al., a federal judge barred enforcement of an AZ law that would withhold health benefits from LGBT employees, their partners, and children. On 6 September 2011, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed.  On 2 July 2012, AZ asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.  On 27 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Arizona’s appeal of a preliminary injunction suspending the voter-approved benefits ban, so the benefits will remain in effect while the case proceeds in the 9th Circuit.  Motions for summary judgment are expected by 15 September 2014.  The trial is expected to take 4 days, but no start date has been proposed.
 * 5) California #1 On 4 August 2010, in Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. v. Kristin Perry, et al., California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage only to mixed-gender couples, was declared unconstitutional.  On 7 February 2012, that ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On 5 June 2012, the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court refused to re-hear its prior decision.  On 26 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling because the Proposition 8 authors had no standing to appeal.  The Supreme Court decision left the original federal district court decision intact.  On 15 July 2013, in Hollingsworth v. O’Connell, the CA Supreme Court declined a request from Proposition 8 authors to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-gender couples, but did agree to consider whether the governor and attorney general correctly told county clerks that Proposition 8 had become invalid statewide.  The Proposition’s authors had argued:  (a) that the federal district court mandate declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional applies only in the 2 counties where the 4 plaintiffs reside; and (b) that state law requires upholding Proposition 8 because the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule directly on its constitutionality, but instead ruled only on whether the authors had standing to appeal.  On 19 July 2013, in San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg v. Governor Jerry Brown, San Diego County petitioned the CA Supreme Court to halt all same-gender marriages, arguing that:  (a) the U.S. Supreme Court decision on 26 June 2013 applies only to two couples and two counties; and (b) county clerks are not under the control of state officials.  On 2 August 2013, Clerk Dronenburg withdrew his petition, leaving only the petition of the Proposition 8 authors to be reviewed by the CA Supreme Court.  On 14 August 2013, the CA Supreme Court dismissed the new 15 July 2013 suit from the Proposition 8 authors, finally closing this state/federal case for once and for all, 4.5 years after it began.
 * 6) California #2 On 22 February 2012, in Karen Golinski v. U.S. OPM (Office of Personnel Management), the federal district court ruled that the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act) is unconstitutional, after which opponents of equality appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  On 3 July 2012, the Obama Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case immediately, which would skip the appeals court review.  This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 27 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case, thereby leaving the 22 February 2012 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in effect, and ensuring the plaintiff’s victory.  On 11 July 2013, the Circuit Court asked both parties to file letter briefs by 25 July about disposing of this case.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.  On 23 July 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
 * 7) California #3 On 12 July 2012, in Aranas/DeLeon, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et. al., the first class action lawsuit against the federal Defense-of-Marriage Act was filed by a Philippine immigrant married to an American of the same gender.  She seeks to avoid deportation of herself and her son, and to win the same right for all LGBT bi-national families.  On 19 April 2013, a federal judge ruled that DOMA is “irrational” and “unconstitutional,” that lesbian couple Jane DeLeon and Irma Rodriguez can challenge DOMA in federal court, and as a nationwide class action representing all immigrants in lawful, same-gender marriages who have been (or will be) denied status or benefits solely under DOMA Section 3.  This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the DOMA, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 12 July 2013, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group withdrew from the case, the court ordered that all additional briefs be filed by 5 August 2013, and a hearing was set for 19 August 2013.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.
 * 8) California #4 On 1 February 2012, in Tracy and Maggie Cooper-Harris v. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, et al., a soldier and her wife filed suit to obtain the same pay and benefits as other legally married, same-gender soldiers.  This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 26-Feb-2013, the Court refused DOJ’s request to dismiss the case, and set a hearing date of 1 April 2013.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.  On 29 August 2013, the court ordered that a veteran can’t be denied benefits just because of having a spouse of the same gender.  On 4 September 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had ceased enforcing U.S. Code, Title 38.
 * 9) California #5 On 24 May 2012, in Michael Dragovich v. U.S. Treasury, U.S. IRS and CalPERS, the federal DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in this case about long-term health care.  On 23 July 2012, the government filed an appeal.  This is one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled BLAG (Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group) had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.  On 22 July 2013, BLAG’s appeal was dismissed, and it withdrew from the case, leavin the United States as the only defendant.
 * 10) California #6 On 10 February 2011, in Handi Lui, et al., v. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, et al., a binational couple sued for immigration rights.  On 28 September 2011, the federal district court dismissed the case, because of its similarity to a 1982 case in Colorado (Adams v. Howerton).  On 29 November 2011, they appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  On 12 July 2012, the court scheduled a conference for 25 October 2012.  This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.
 * 11) California #7 In April 2012, U.S. District court ruled that DOJ must reimburse employees for spousal insurance coverage denied by the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act).  In November 2012, the Judicial Council of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a 3-judge panel, ordered San Francisco’s federal court to pay within 10 days the plaintiff/employee’s costs of insuring his husband.
 * 12) Connecticut In October 2011, in Carmen Cardona v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, a sailor filed suit over denial of spouse disability benefits.  On 19 April 2012, she filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  On 2 August 2013, the Republican-controlled BLAG (Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group) ceased being a defendant in the case, leaving the United States as the only defedant.  VA Secretary Shinseki says he will recognize same-gender civil spouses of military personnel only after direction from the U.S. Department of Justice or President Obama.  A favorable ruling in this case would affect every military veteran.
 * 13) District of Columbia On 15 August 2013, in James Spellman v. Washington DC, a surviving same-gender partner sued to get his relationship with Michael Kelly recognized as a common-law marriage for purposes of settling Kelly’s estate.  States recognize common-law marriages fully (AL, CO, DC, IA, KS, MT, OK, RI, SC, TX), if established before a certain date (GA, ID, OH, OK, PA, and a few others), for probate only (NH), or if validated by court order (UT).  The U.S. Labor Department recognizes common-law same-gender marriages as defined by state law where the employee resides, but other agencies differ.
 * 14) Hawaii #1 On 11 December 2011, in Emmanuel Temple, the House of Praise, et al., v. Governor Neil Abercrombie, et al., two Oahu, HI churches sued to repeal the 2011 civil union law because that law exempts churches that only perform marriage ceremonies for their members, but that exemption doesn’t apply to churches that are open to the public and rent out their facilities.  As requested by the state, on 2 October 2012, the suit was dismissed.
 * 15) Hawaii #2 On 8 August 2012, in Natasha Jackson, et al., v. Governor Neil Abercrombie, et al., a federal judge in Honolulu ruled against LGBT couples seeking to marry.  They had argued that the HI civil union law is unconstitutional because it denies them equal treatment.  Hawaii’s 2011 civil union law grants couples only the same state rights as full marriage, but no federal marriage benefits.  The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Ciruit Court of Appeals.  Briefs are expected in October 2013, and arguments shortly thereafter, in tandem with a NV same-gender marriage appeal (see Nevada for details).
 * 16) Illinois #1 & #2 On 30 May 2012, ACLU and Lambda Legal filed two lawsuits for 25 same-gender couples.  (The Tanya Lazaro, et al. v. Orr case was later consolidated into the other case, Darby v. Orr).  The plaintiffs argued that the IL civil union law is unconstitutional because it denies them the freedom to marry.  The couples’ arguments are supported by Cook County Clerk David Orr (the IL official named as defendant), Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Governor Quinn.  Madigan filed arguments the week of 24 June 2012 supporting the plaintiffs in both cases.  The court permitted two Illinois county clerks (Tazewell County Clerk Christie Webb and Effingham County Clerk Kerry Hirtzel), represented by the anti-LGBT Thomas More Society, to defend the marriage ban.  Those opponents of equality filed a motion to dismiss the case.  Two anti-LGBT organizations (Illinois Family Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom) and two churches (Grace-Gospel Fellowship church and Church of Christian Liberty) attempted to join the defendants in the case.  On 30 November 2012, the Cook County Circuit Court denied the 4 outside parties’ requests to intervene.  On 13 February 2013, the Circuit Court denied the request of the anti-LGBT Thomas More Society to suspend these cases until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on 2 other marriage cases.  On 10 July 2013, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on their IL civil unions depriving them of federal marriage benefits.  On 11 July 2013, over 200 religious leaders asked the IL court to overturn the ban on same-gender civil marriages, arguing that religious doctrine has no place in public laws.  A decision is expected on 27 September 2013.
 * 17) Illinois #3 On 5 January 2012, in Demos Revelis, et al. v. Janet Napolitano, et. al., the U.S. District Court ruled that despite the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act), LGBT couples must be treated the same as other married couples.  On 20 September 2012, the case was dismissed for a technicality not related to DOMA.  This is one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is defending the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charging taxpayers for the cost.
 * 18) Iowa On 8 August 2013, the IA Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board voted to investigate NOM (National Organization for Marriage) for unlawfully concealing donors.  NOM spent about $735,000 in 2010 and 2012 trying to unseat 4 of the 9 Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled unanimously for same-gender civil marriage in 2009.  On 21 August 2013, the Board voted unanimously to retain its current executive director and staff attorney during the investigation.
 * 19) Kentucky #1 On 26 July 2013, in Gregory Bourke & Michael Deleon v. Kentucky, a gay couple filed a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and the ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere.
 * 20) Kentucky #2 On 30 July 2013, in Kentucky v. Bobbie Jo Clary, prosecutors want Geneva Case to testify against her own wife in a murder trial, and KY is refusing to recognize their 2004 VT civil union, which in 2009 was automatically converted to a VT marriage.  The spouse testimony decision is expected to be made in mid-August, and the trial held on 30 August.
 * 21) Louisiana On 16 July 2013, in Jonathan Robicheaux and Derek Penton v. LA Attorney General James Caldwell, a federal lawsuit challenged the LA constitutional amendment and state law banning same-gender civil marriage, and sought LA recognition for same-gender couples married elsewhere.
 * 22) Maine #1 Maine law requires donors and expenditures that influence a campaign to be disclosed, but NOM has refused to disclose the donors of $1.93 million to NOM’s 2009 effort that repealed Maine’s same-gender marriage law in 2009, as well as donors to campaign to defeat marriage equality in Maine in 2012.  On 31 January 2012, in National Organization for Marriage, et. al., v. Walter McKee, et. al., the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all claims by NOM that Maine’s registration and campaign finance disclosure laws are unconstitutional.  NOM’s first appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was refused on 27 February 2012, and its second appeal was refused on 2 October 2012, leaving the lower court decision intact.
 * 23) Maine #2 Maine law requires donors and expenditures that influence a campaign to be disclosed, but NOM has refused to disclose that data since 2009.  On 27 June 2012, in NOM, et al. v. Maine, the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices to uphold the subpoenas issued on 28 January 2010, thus requiring NOM to identify and testify about 2009 revenue sources, expenditures, and funds transfers to Stand For Marriage Maine.  NOM appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Court, which will decide the case in 2013.
 * 24) Massachusetts #1 & #2 On 31 May 2012, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals found the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act) unconstitutional in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. HHS (Department of Health and Human Services), et al., and Nancy Gill, et al. v. U.S. OPM (Office of Personnel Management), et al.  These were two of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the DOMA, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 29 June 2012, House Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse that decision, and on 24 July, MA Attorney General Martha Coakley asked the U.S. Supreme Court uphold that decision.  The U.S. Justice Department filed historic legal briefs in support of both plaintiffs, and argued for both plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court, which on 27 June 2013 declined to review these cases, leaving both Appeals Court victories intact.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.
 * 25) Massachusetts #3 On 9 July 2010, in Joanne Pedersen, et al. v. U.S. OPM (Office of Personnel Management), et al., the U.S. district court found the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act) unconstitutional in a case filed by GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders).  (This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charged taxpayers for the cost.)  That ruling was appealed by the U.S. Justice Department to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.  In addition, on 17 August 2012, GLAD also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and on 11 September 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice also asked the Court to review the case.  Back in the appeals court, on 28 August 2012, the court denied Pedersen’s request to expedite her appeal and to assign the case to the same panel that is hearing Windsor v. U.S. IRS.  On 31 August 2012, the appeals court also ruled that the Republican-controlled Legal Advisory Group is one of the losing defendants in the district court, and thus can file its own appeal by 1 October 2012.  On 28 November 2012, the appeals court suspended the case schedule, pending outcome of one or more U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  On 27 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.
 * 26) Massachusetts #4 On 27 October 2011, in Shannon McLaughlin, et al. v. Leon Panetta, et al., plaintiffs filed a Federal district court suit in Massachusetts seeking equal pay/benefits for active/veteran military personnel.  The suit challenges the U.S. Code and the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act).  On 17 February 2012, the U.S. DOJ announced that it would not defend either law in this case, although it will remain a party in the case.  The case was suspended pending decisions in Gill v. U.S. OPM and in Massachusetts v. U.S. HHS.  This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charged taxpayers for the cost.  On 27 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case, allowing it to continue in the Court of Appeals.  On 18 July 2013, the U.S. DoJ notified the court that based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 26 June 2013 Windsor decision, all other statutes in this case apply equally to same-gender and mixed-gender couples, and this court should not enter a judgment favoring the plaintiffs.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.  On 4 September 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had ceased enforcing U.S. Code, Title 38.
 * 27) Massachusetts #5 On 31 May 2012, in Dean Hara v. U.S. OPM (Office of Personnel Management), the DOMA was ruled unconstitutional.  A 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision is on hold pending resolution of Gill v. U.S. OPM.
 * 28) Michigan #1 On 23 January 2012, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a lesbian couple went to federal court to challenge MI laws that deny adoption to certified foster parents when they are not married.  On 7 September 2012, as suggested by the judge, they amended their suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption.  On 19 February 2013, Oakland County, MI clerk Lisa Brown withdrew her request to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that she agrees with the plaintiffs and wants their suit to succeed.  On 7 March 2013, a U.S. District judge heard arguments challenging the constitutionality of the state same-gender marriage ban, and heard the state’s request to dismiss the suit.  The judge decided not to dismiss, and to postpone making a ruling until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides two other marriage-related cases about the DOMA and California Proposition 8.  On 1 July 2013, the court denied state’s request to dismiss the suit.  On 10 July, the judge set a trial date of 1 October 2013.  On 22 July 2013, the MI Governor and Attorney General claimed that same-gender civil marriage is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, that denying the plaintiffs their marriage license does no harm, and that the state constitutional amendment banning same-gender marriage is necessary to “promote responsible procreation” and to ensure that every child has mixed-gender parents.
 * 29) Michigan #2 In Theresa Bassett, et al., v. MI Governor Richard Snyder, five same-gender couples challenged the constitutionality of MI’s Public Act 297 which denies fringe benefits to same-gender partners of government employees.  On 28 June 2013, the U.S. District Court issued an injunction that temporarily prevents the law from taking effect until the entire case is decided.
 * 30) Minnesota #1 On 27 February 2012, In re: the estate of Thomas Proehl, surviving spouse James Morrison petitioned the court for permission to inherit his deceased husband’s estate.  On 1 August 2012, a judge ruled that same-gender couples legally married elsewhere can inherit each other’s property in MN, even though MN itself does not recognize same-gender marriages.  MN law prohibits same-gender couples from having contractual rights, but not statutory (legal, economic, employment, health care, spouse privilege, confidential marriage communication, inheritance) rights.
 * 31) Minnesota #2 In 2010, in Douglas Benson, et al. v. Hennepin County Local Registrar Jill Alverson, et al., three same-gender couples filed suit challenging the MN Defense-of-Marriage Act.  A trial court dismissed the suit, but on 10 July 2011, the couples appealed.  On 23 January 2012, a MN appeals court overturned the dismissal, and ordered a full trial back in district court.  Plaintiffs' request for a summary judgment is pending, after which either they will win their case or else it will go to trial.  In February 2013, both parties agreed to put the proceedings on hold until at least 1 June 2013.
 * 32) Missouri On 27 February 2013, in Kelly Glossip v. MO Highway Patrol, the MO Supreme Court heard arguments in an equal protection case filed by ACLU on behalf of Glossip, who was denied survivor benefits when his highway patrolman partner of 15 years was killed while on duty.  The state constitution bans same-gender marriage, but not domestic partner benefits.
 * 33) Montana On 17 December 2012, in Jan Donaldson, et al. v. Montana, in a 4-3 decision based on the state constitutional marriage ban of 2004, the MT Supreme Court rejected the claim for equal benefits for inheritance, burial, worker compensation, death benefits, taxation, health care decision-making, divorce, custody, and child support.  But the court also wrote that the plaintiffs did not specify which laws discriminate against them, thereby inviting the couples and ACLU Montana to submit a modified request.  On 15 July 2013, in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana, ACLU of Montana amended its complaint for 7 gay couples and now seeks all of the benefits of marriage, other than marriage itself.
 * 34) Nebraska On 27 August 2013, in Greg Stewart and Stillman Stewart, et al. v. NE Governor Dave Heineman et al., ACLU Nebraska filed a suit challenging NE’s 1995 ban on unmarried, cohabiting, unrelated adults serving as foster parents, as well as gays or lesbians serving as foster parents.
 * 35) Nevada In 2002, NV amended the state constitution to ban same-gender marriage.  In 2009, the legislature created domestic partnership.  On 10 April 2012, in Beverly Sevcik, et al., v. Governor Brian Sandoval, et al., a lawsuit seeking full marriage equality was filed in federal district court by Lambda Legal on behalf of 8 same-gender couples.  On 26 November 2012, a Mormon judge ruled that same-gender couples have no constitutional right to marry:  (1) because they usually do not procreate; and (2) because if same-gender couples start marrying, then opposite-gender couples might marry less often.  The judge also ruled that laws related to sexual orientation should not be tested under heightened scrutiny (a greater assumption that they’re unconstitutional) because gays and lesbians now have substantial political power, and thus no longer qualify as a minority class.  On 5 December 2012, the anti-LGBT group Coalition For the Protection of Marriage from Boise, ID asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.  Simultaneously, Lambda Legal appealed the November 2012 ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and on 7 January 2013, that court set June 2013 deadlines for filing briefs.  On 27 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case, and returned it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Briefs are expected in October 2013, with arguments and a decision in 2014, in tandem with a HI same-gender marriage appeal (see Hawaii for details).  Supreme Court review could not occur until 2015.
 * 36) New Jersey #1 & #2 On 29 June 2011, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., Lambda Legal filed a suit for 7 same-gender couples claiming that civil unions are inferior to full marriage, and that civil unions violate both the state and federal constitutions.  (This case is a continuation of Mark Lewis, et. al. v. NJ Department of Human Services Commissioner Gwendolyn Harris, a 2002 case in which the state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that it is unconstitutional to deny full marriage to same-gender couples.)  In February 2012, the court reinstated a federal equal protection claim.  On 3 July 2013, 6 same-gender couples and their children requested a summary judgment for the right to marry immediately, without a trial, so that they may be eligible for the 1,138 federal marriage-related benefits which now are available to all legally married same-gender couples but not to civil union couples.  On 2 August 2013, NJ argued that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is not ready to be decided yet, and asked for additional time to gather more facts (same-gender civil marriage has been a NJ DoJ issue since March 2004).  A hearing is scheduled for 15 August 2013 in Mercer County Superior Court.  The trial, if any, would occur later.
 * 37) New Jersey #3 On 23 October 2012, in the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association case, the NJ State Division of Civil Rights upheld a famous decision from January 2012 issued by a NJ Office of Administrative Law judge, who said that the Association unlawfully discriminated against a lesbian couple in 2007 when it denied their request to hold a civil union ceremony at its boardwalk pavilion, which it had promised to make available to the public in exchange for a state tax break.
 * 38) New Mexico #1 On 17 August 2012, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear a photographer’s religion-based appeal, in Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock.  In 2006, a photography business was fined $6,638 by the state Civil Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a lesbian civil commitment ceremony.  The photographer lost her case at the Commission, in the trial court, and in the appeals court on 31 May 2012, and in the NM Supreme Court on 22 August 2013.  The NM Supreme Court unanimously confirmed both of the lower court decisions, and ruled for the 3rd time in favor of the plaintiff, stating that (1) denying photography service to a same-gender couple customer was unlawfully discriminatory, (2) requiring businesses to serve all customers equally does not violate free speech guarantees, and (3) the religious freedom law does not apply in a suit between private parties.  The court rejected the photographer’s excuses about free speech and freedom of religion, and also affirmed that photographers and other creative/expressive vendors are never exempt from the anti-discrimination laws.  Equality opponents cite this case more than any other when arguing that marriage equality eliminates religious freedom.
 * 39) New Mexico #2 On 21 March 2013, in Rose Griego, et al., v. NM Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Oliver, the ACLU, NCLR (National Center for Lesbian Rights), and local attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of 2 same-gender couples who applied for civil marriage licenses and were denied by Bernalillo County, later expanded to 6 couples, and later expanded to challenge the NE 1995 ban on gay and lesbian individuals and couples serving as foster parents, and the ban on same-gender couples adopting a child, as well as NE’s 2000 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage.  They also applied for a license, along with 63 other same-gender couples, in 2004.  Those 64 licenses were issued, but licenses for same-gender couples were halted soon thereafter.  On 28 August 2013, Attorney General Gary King confirmed that those 64 marriages, as well as recent marriages, are all valid unless voided by a court.  The 64 couples, however, often aren’t treated equally.  On 2 July 2013, they asked the NM Supreme Court to rule immediately.  On 15 August 2013, the state Supreme Court returned the suit to a lower court, noting that the plaintiffs could request expedited review.  On 16 August 2013, Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins began issuing same-gender civil marriage licenses, noting that NM Attorney General Gary King has said NM’s practice of banning same-gender marriage is probably unconstitutional, and he has refused to defend the law in court cases now underway.  On 19 August 2013, Alexander Hanna & Yon Hudson, a same-gender couple in another marriage lawsuit, asked the NM Supreme Court to consolidate and streamline, both in the lower courts, and in the NM Supreme Court, all lawsuits regarding same-gender civil marriage.  On 21 August 2013, an emergency request was filed for Jen Roper, who has a life-threatening form of brain cancer, to legally marry Angelique Neuman immediately, so that their 3 children are protected in the event of Jen’s death.  That request was granted, and a marriage ceremony was performed at a hospital.  On 26 August 2013, NM District Court Judge ruled that denying same-gender civil marriage licenses is blatantly unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that licenses start being issued immediately.  On 30 August 2013, the NM Association of Counties and the clerks of 31 counties were granted permission to intervene in the suit, which they hope will encourage a quick ruling from the NM Supreme Court.
 * 40) New Mexico #3 On 6 June 2013, in Alexander Hanna & Yon Hudson v. Santa Fe County, a couple sued to obtain a same-gender civil marriage license.   On 27 June 2013, the plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuit from district court and shifted it to the NM Supreme Court to get a faster decision.  NM is the only state that neither allows nor prohibits same-gender civil marriage.  On 2 July 2013, the NM Supreme Court asked the state attorney general and the Santa Fe county clerk to respond to the lawsuit by 22 July 2013.  On 22 July 2013, NM Attorney General Gary King notified the NM Supreme Court that prohibiting same-gender civil marriage is unconstitutional.  On 15 August 2013, the state Supreme Court returned the suit to a lower court, noting that the plaintiffs could request expedited review.  On 16 August 2013, Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins began issuing same-gender civil marriage licenses, noting that NM Attorney General Gary King has said NM’s practice of banning same-gender marriage is probably unconstitutional, and he has refused to defend the law in court cases now underway.  On 19 August 2013, the couple asked the NM Supreme Court to consolidate and streamline, both in the lower courts, and in the NM Supreme Court, all lawsuits regarding same-gender civil marriage.  On 23 August 2013, Santa Fe, NM County Clerk Geraldine Salazar began issuing 45 same-gender civil marriage licenses, in response to the first NM court order to do so issued on 22 August.  On 28 August 2013, Attorney General Gary King confirmed that all licensed marriages remain valid unless voided by a court.  On 29 August 2013, in Alexander Hanna & Yon Hudson v. Santa Fe County, the NM Supreme Court denied the couple’s request asking the high court to consolidate several marriage equality cases and place them on an expedited track.
 * 41) New Mexico #4 On 29 August 2013, in Janet Newton and Maria Thibodeau v. Los Alamos County Clerk Sharon Stover, the lesbian couple sued to obtain a same-gender civil marriage license which the clerk had refused to issue to them.  The same day, a judge ordered the county to issue same-gender civil marriage licenses.  The clerk initially defied the order, but subsequently complied with it.
 * 42) New Mexico #5 On 28 August 2013, the New Mexico Associaiton of Counties and all 33 county clerks voted unanimously to seek a NM Supreme Court ruling on the legality of same-gender civil marriage.  On 5 September 2013, they requested the NM Supreme Court to:  (1) temporarily halt all district court lawsuits regarding same-gender civil marriage, and (2) issue a special order confirming whether such marriages are legal.  Since 21 August 2013, over 900 such licenses were issued by 8 of the 33 counties (Bernalillo, Doña Ana, Grant, Los Alamos, Santa Fe, San Miguel, Taos, Valencia), covering 58% of the state population.  On 6 September 2013, the NM Supreme Court scheduled a hearing on 23 October 2013.
 * 43) New Mexico #6 On 29 August 2013, in Carolyn VanHousen and Gail Gering v. Sandoval County Clerk Eileen Garbagni, a lesbian couple sued after being denied a marriage license.
 * 44) New Mexico #7 On 30 August 2013, a suit to stop Doña Ana County from issuing civil marriage licenses to same-gender couples was filed by 7 NM state lawmakers (Sen.s Sharer and Neville, and Rep.s Gallegos, Hall, Herrell, Roch, and Strickler), who represent only 15% of all NM Republican lawmakers, and only 6% of all NM lawmakers.  Since 21 August 2013, over 900 same-gender civil marriage licenses were issued by 8 of the 33 counties (Bernalillo, Doña Ana, Grant, Los Alamos, Santa Fe, San Miguel, Taos, Valencia), covering 58% of the state population.  On 3 September 2013, another 8 Republican lawmakers joined the lawsuit.
 * 45) New Mexico #8 On 4 September 2013, Grant County Clerk Robert Zamarripa decided to comply with a judge’s 2 September 2013 ruling that same-gender civil marriage licenses must be issued.
 * 46) New York #1 On 6 June 2012, in Edith Windsor v. U.S. IRS (Internal Revenue Service), the federal District Court held that the federal DOMA (Defense-of-Marriage Act) is unconstitutional in a case filed by the ACLU.  (This is one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the DOMA, and charged taxpayers for the cost.)  On 18 October 2012, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling and again declared DOMA unconstitutional.  This appeals court was the first appeals court to apply heightened scrutiny (a stronger assumption that the law is unconstitutional) in reaching its ruling.  On 26 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declared DOMA §3 unconstitutional because (1) the law’s purpose was to injure and disparage legally married couples, and (2) it violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal liberty clause.
 * 47) New York #2 On 6 July 2012, in New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v. New York, a NY state appeals court unanimously ruled against this challenge to the 2011 same-gender marriage equality law.  On 6 August 2012, the plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the state’s highest court.  On 23 October 2012, that court declined to review the case, leaving the earlier dismissal intact.
 * 48) New York #3 On 19 June 2012, in Jane Roe & Jane Doe v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield & St. Joseph's Medical Center, a class action suit for LGBT spouse health benefits was filed in U.S. district court.  Additional filings are due 1 November, 3 December, and 17 December 2012.  Being self-insured, St. Joseph’s is exempt from federal regulation.
 * 49) New York #4 On 2 April 2012, in Edwin Blesch, et al. v. Eric Holder, et al., 5 binational couples filed suit for immigration rights.  On 25 July 2012, the court put the case on hold pending the resolution of Windsor v. U.S.  This was one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charging taxpayers for the cost.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.
 * 50) North Carolina On 13 June 2012, in Marcie Fisher-Borne, et al. v. John Smith, et al., the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued several state judges in federal court on behalf of 6 same-gender couples and their children seeking adoption rights.  On 12 July 2013, the ACLU amended the suit to add a demand that the plaintiffs are entitled to marriage.
 * 51) Ohio #1 In 2011, in James Koren v. Ohio Bell Telephone, the plaintiff sued his employer in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for firing him because he took his husband’s last name, for gender discrimination, for disability discrimination, and for firing him because he is gay.  The court ruled that Title VII includes sexual orientation, even though it does not mention it specifically.  On 14 August 2012, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
 * 52) Ohio #2 On 19 July 2013, in Jim Obergefell & John Arthur v. Ohio, a gay male couple filed a federal lawsuit to have their MD marriage recognized in OH (despite OH’s 2004 constitutional ban on same-gender marriage) before John, who is fatally ill, passes away.  On 22 July 2013, the federal court ordered OH to recognize their marriage on any Death Certificate via a temporary injunction while the case proceeds.  On 23 July, Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) announced that he will defend OH for the right to discriminate against all other same-gender couples.  On 13 August 2013, a federal judge extended the previous temporary restraining order through 31 December 2013.  The judge will hear oral arguments on 18 December.  On 3 September 2013, the court allowed David Michener to join the lawsuit as an additional plaintiff so that he could be listed as spouse on the Death Certificate of his spouse, William Ives, who died unexpectedly on 22 July 2013.
 * 53) Oklahoma The 2004 federal case of Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al. challenges the state constitution for denying the right to marry the person of one’s own choice, for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, and for other aspects of the federal Defense-of-Marriage Act.  (This is one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defended the DOMA, and charged taxpayers for the cost.)  On 28 September 2011, the four plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.  As of 30 March 2012, the court suspended all deadlines, so no trial date has been set.  The Tulsa, County OK district attorney hired 3 anti-LGBT groups (Alliance Defense Fund, Alliance Defending Freedom, Oklahomans for Protection of Marriage) to defend the state law, and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was defending the federal law (both laws being defended at taxpayer expense).  On 16 July 2013, the plaintiffs requested permission to file a supplemental brief.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.  On 26 July 2013, plaintiffs asked for final judgment in their favor regarding DOMA §3, based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision (26 June 2013).  On 2 August 2013, BLAG withdrew from the case, leaving the United States as the only defendant.
 * 54) Oregon On 24 April 2013, in a matter regarding Alison Clark (Case 13-80100), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a non-published, administrative ruling based on 3 major marriage-related rationales:  (1) Oregon’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage is unconstitutional; (2) the federal 1996 DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional; and (3) anti-LGBT laws have to be examined under the strict scrutiny standard used for other minorities such as race and sex.  The ruling doesn’t affect enforcement of the Oregon marriage ban or the federal DOMA, or hold precedential weight in future litigation.  Alison Clark is an employee of the U.S. Courts, and had filed an employee sexual orientation discrimination complaint (but not a federal lawsuit) with her employer (the U.S. Courts), because her employer refused to recognize her legal marriage to Anna Campbell, and refused to issue health care benefits to Campbell as Clark’s spouse.
 * 55) Pennsylvania #1 On 10 May 2012, in Marie Himmelberger v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., a 3-judge panel of the PA intermediate appellate court upheld a lower court ruling that a woman who inherited her deceased civil union partner’s home in 2010 still must pay PA $108,538.83 in inheritance taxes because her partner is not her spouse, because their 2007 New Jersey civil union, obtained when they lived in NJ, carries no weight in PA, where they lived at the time that the first partner died.
 * 56) Pennsylvania #2 On 4 January 2011, in Cozen O’Connor v. Jennifer Tobits, et al., a surviving wife sued to obtain death benefits denied by DOMA.  The most recent hearing was on 12 March 2012.  This is one of 14 cases in which the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was defending the Defense-of-Marriage Act, and charging taxpayers for the cost.  On 18 July 2013, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner announced that the Republican-controlled Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had ceased defending DOMA in all 14 of the federal lawsuits on which it wasted $3 million in taxpayer funds, including this one.  On 29 July 2013, the U.S. district court ruled that Jennifer Tobits is entitled to her deceased spouse’s pension benefits because in Canada they had gotten married and in Illinois (where they lived) they had a civil union.
 * 57) Pennsylvania #3 On 9 July 2013, in Deb & Susan Whitewood v. PA Governor Tom Corbett et al., 23 people (a widow, 10 same-gender couples, 4 of which were legally married in other states, and 2 of their teenage daughters) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the PA law that bans same-gender marriage for residents, and that ignores out-of-state same-gender marriages.
 * 58) Pennsylvania #4 On 22 July 2013, in Tim Hare & Earl Ball v. Pennsylvania, a gay male couple challenged the PA ban on same-gender marriage, and requested an immediate injunction allowing them to marry.
 * 59) Pennsylvania #5 On 9 July 2013, in Ed Hill & David Palmer v. Pennsylvania, a retired gay couple, together for over 25 years, sued to have their ME marriage recognized in PA.
 * 60) Pennsylvania #6 On 30 July 2013, in Pennsylvania Health Department v. Montgomery County Court Clerk Bruce Hanes, PA sued a county clerk who has issued 164 same-gender civil marriage licenses.  Clerk Bruce Hanes and Attorney General Kathleen Kane both say that the state marriage ban is unconstitutional.  On 2 August 2013, county attorneys asked the state court to transfer the case to the state Supreme Court.  Briefs from both sides are due 19 August, and a conference is scheduled for 4 September.  On 19 August 2013, 32 same-gender couples who received licenses from Hanes asked the court for permission to join Hanes as defendants.
 * 61) South Carolina On 28 August 2013, in Katherine Bradacs & Tracie Goodwin v. SC Governor Nimrata Haley, et al., a lesbian couple filed a federal lawsuit challenging the SC Defense-of-Marriage Law and the SC 2007 constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage.
 * 62) Tennessee On 7 August 2013, same-gender couples began applying for marriage licenses as the first step of an upcoming court challenge to two same-gender civil marriage bans (statutory and constitutional).
 * 63) Texas #1 In January 2009, in J.B. and H.B. vs. Dallas County, TX, the plaintiffs, a gay male couple, sought to dissolve their MA marriage.  In September 2009, the district court ruled that the state’s 2005 marriage ban amendment was unconstitutional, and that same-gender divorce was possible.  In August 2010, the state court of appeals overturned that decision.  In March 2011, the plaintiffs appealed to the state Supreme Court.  On 3 July 2013, the TX Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefs about impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that oveturned DOMA §3 and denied standing to the authors of CA Proposition 8.  The briefs are due 18 July, 29 July, and 6 August 2013.  On 5 November 2013, the TX Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments.
 * 64) Texas #2 On 25 July 2013, in TX v. Angelique Naylor & Sabrina Daly, TX Attorney General (and candidate for governor) Greg Abbott (R) filed a brief arguing that couples in same-gender civil marriages from other states can’t get a divorce in TX.  Final briefs are due by 6 August 2013 regarding impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that overturned DOMA §3 and denied standing to the authors of CA Proposition 8.  On 5 November 2013, the TX Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments.
 * 65) Texas #3 On 7 May 2013, in Carolyn Compton v. Joshua Compton, Carolyn was told by Collin County, Texas Judge John Roach, Jr. that her lesbian partner, Page Price, must move out of Compton’s home, or Compton will lose custody of her children.
 * 66) Texas #4 In October 2011, William Flowers appealed a decision by a Houston, TX judge that he can’t leave his children alone with his husband, Jim Evans, because the husband is not related by blood or adoption.  Oral arguments were heard in November 2012.
 * 67) Texas #5 On 1 July 2013, in Domenico Nuckols vs. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a Galveston man filed a federal lawsuit challenging the TX constitution’s ban on same-gender marriage.  His foreign national partner was deported in 1986.  On 17 July 2013, Nuckols withdrew his suit, after hearing from the ACLU and from Lambda Legal.
 * 68) Utah On 25 March 2013, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Attorney General John Swallow, et al., 3 couples filed a federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-gender marriage.  The plaintiffs are one gay couple, one lesbian couple, and a second lesbian couple whose IA marriage is ignored by UT.
 * 69) Virginia #1 On 18 July 2013, in Tony London & Timothy Bostic vs. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a gay couple filed a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage.
 * 70) Virginia #2 On 1 August, in Joanne Harris et al. v. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell et al., the ACLU, ACLU Virginia, and Lambda Legal filed a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere.
 * 71) Washington On 28 June 2013, in Freed & Robert Ingersoll v. Florist Baronelle Stutzman, and WA State v. Florist Baronelle Stutzman, and Florist Baronelle Stutzman v. WA State, Benton County Superior Court Judge Salvador Mendoza:  (1) refused to recuse himself from the cases; and (2) consolidated the first two lawsuits, in which a commercial florist refused to deliver flowers for the wedding of two gay men, in violation of the 2006 consumer protection and sexual orientation discrimination laws.  ACLU represents the couple, and the anti-LGBT organization Alliance Defending Freedom represents the florist.
 * 72) Wisconsin On 17 September 2012, in Julaine Appling, et al., v. James Doyle, et al., the WI Supreme Court declined to review a case challenging the state’s 2009 domestic partnership law, and upheld a lower court’s ruling that that law does not violate the state’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender marriage, because domestic partnership offers only 41 of the 200 rights that come with full marriage.  The case returned to the 4th District Court of Appeals for a hearing, and on 21 December 2012, the WI Court of Appeals upheld as constitutional the state’s 2009 Domestic Partner Registry law, and rejected arguments of the anti-LGBT group Wisconsin Family Action as “nonsense.”  WFA appealed again.  On 14 June 2013, the WI Supreme Court agreed to review the case.