University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Love v. Pence PB-IN-0004
Docket / Court 4:14-cv-00015-RLY-TAB ( S.D. Ind. )
State/Territory Indiana
Case Type(s) Public Benefits / Government Services
Special Collection Same-Sex Marriage
Case Summary
Plaintiffs in this federal marriage equality lawsuit are four same-sex Indiana couples -- two male, two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking to have their out-of-state marriage recognized. They filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the ... read more >
Plaintiffs in this federal marriage equality lawsuit are four same-sex Indiana couples -- two male, two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking to have their out-of-state marriage recognized. They filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 7, 2014, to challenge the constitutionality of Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. Indiana's statute banning same-sex marriages and "void[ing]" out-of-state same-sex marriages is IC 31-11-1-1, Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act, which provides: "(a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. (b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized."

Plaintiffs alleged that the Indiana law violates the federal Constitution. And, to the extent it is purportedly authorized by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they claimed that the federal statute is also unconstitutional. (Section 2 of DOMA provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."). They brought claims under the Equal Protection Clause (alleging both sex and sexual orientation discrimination), the Due Process Clause (arguing that marriage is a fundamental right), the First Amendment (arguing that the marriage ban violated their freedom of association), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the right to travel, and the Establishment Clause.

On June 25, 2014, the court (Judge Richard Young) granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and on September 16, 2014, the court (Judge Young) reinstated the married plaintiffs' claims. According to the court, the unmarried plaintiffs' claims remained dismissed, "because the Governor cannot remedy the harms alleged by them."

As of November 24, 2014, the parties were submitting pre-trial motions related to the reopened case.

Margo Schlanger - 03/14/2014
Priyah Kaul - 11/27/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Male
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Full faith and credit
Right to travel
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
Sexual orientatation
General
Disparate Treatment
Gay/lesbian/transgender
Marriage
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) Indiana
Plaintiff Description Four same-sex Indiana couples, two male and two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking legal recognition of their out-of-state marriage by Indiana.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing PB-IN-0005 : Baskin v. Bogan (S.D. Ind.)
PB-IN-0006 : Fujii v. Governor, State of Indiana (S.D. Ind.)
PB-IN-0008 : Lee v. Pence (S.D. Ind.)
PB-IN-0007 : Bowling v. Pence (S.D. Ind.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Limited Partnership
http://www.limitedpartnershipmovie.com/
By: Thomas G. Miller
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  United States Government says L.A. Gay Couple’s 1975 Marriage is Valid
The Pride L.A.
Written: Jun. 07, 2016
By: Troy Masters
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
4:14-cv-00015 (S.D. Ind.) 11/24/2014
PB-IN-0004-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 03/07/2014
PB-IN-0004-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Entry on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 06/25/2014 (S.D. Ind.)
PB-IN-0004-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Entry on Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider 09/16/2014 (2014 WL 4636553 / 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 129224) (S.D. Ind.)
PB-IN-0004-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Baker, Tim A. (S.D. Ind.) [Magistrate]
PB-IN-0004-9000
Young, Richard L. (S.D. Ind.)
PB-IN-0004-0002 | PB-IN-0004-0003 | PB-IN-0004-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Canon, Daniel J. (Kentucky)
PB-IN-0004-0001 | PB-IN-0004-9000
Fauver, Shannon Renee (Kentucky)
PB-IN-0004-0001 | PB-IN-0004-9000
Landenwich, Laura E. (Kentucky)
PB-IN-0004-0001 | PB-IN-0004-9000
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -