Filed Date: 2013
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Plaintiffs, a same-sex couple who live in Louisiana, and had legally married in California, filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to have their marriage recognized by the state of Louisiana and the ability for one plaintiff to legally adopt the biological son of her partner. On July 26, 2013, Judge Edward B. Broussard dismissed the case. The case was appealed.
On September 22, 2014, Judge Edward Rubin of the 15th Judicial District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the state's Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional under the due process clause, the equal protection clause, and the full-faith and credit clause of the federal constitution. The ruling ordered that the couple's marriage be recognized and granted a same-sex couple's second-parent adoption.
On September 25, the state of Louisiana appealed, putting the ruling on hold. on July 7, 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal as moot. 167 So.3d 619 (2015). In its per curiam order, the Court explained that while the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court had decided Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), which held that state bans on same-sex marriage violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Obergefell Court also ruled that there is "no lawful basis" to uphold so-called "recognition bans"—such as Louisiana's laws banning recognition of same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states.
Following Obergefell, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held La. Const. Art. XII, § 15, La. Civ.Code art. 89, and La. Civ.Code art. 3520(B) violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and enjoined the State of Louisiana and its officials from enforcing those provisions as well as Revenue Information Bulletin No. 13-024. Robicheaux v. Caldwell.
Describing those interceding cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court held here that they were binding upon it. Accordingly, it said, "Through the action of the federal courts, plaintiffs have received all the relief they requested in their motion for summary judgment, which forms the basis for this appeal. Given these developments, there is no longer a justiciable controversy for this court to resolve." It therefore dismissed the case as moot. However, it also "emphasize[d] that the freedom of religious organizations to perform marriage ceremonies according to the dictates of their faith is not implicated herein."
Summary Authors
Patrick Branson (4/13/2015)
Crichton, Scott J. (Louisiana)
Guidry, Greg Gerard (Louisiana)
Baier, Paul R. (Louisiana)
Caldwell, James David (Louisiana)
Duncan, S. Kyle (District of Columbia)
Crichton, Scott J. (Louisiana)
Guidry, Greg Gerard (Louisiana)
Hughes, Jefferson D. III (Louisiana)
Knoll, Jeannette (Louisiana)
Rubin, Edward D. (Louisiana)
Weimer, John L. (Louisiana)
Last updated April 15, 2024, 3:10 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Louisiana
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: 2013
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Same-sex couple who were legally married in California and moved to Louisiana.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
LGBTQ+:
Discrimination-basis: