On April 17, 2007, a U.S. citizen and a citizen of Mexico, represented by the ACLU Foundation, the ACLU of Pennsylvania and private attorneys, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to challenge the denial of their application for a marriage license. Luzerne ...
read more >
On April 17, 2007, a U.S. citizen and a citizen of Mexico, represented by the ACLU Foundation, the ACLU of Pennsylvania and private attorneys, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to challenge the denial of their application for a marriage license. Luzerne County required persons seeking to obtain a marriage license to prove their lawful presence in the United States before their application for a marriage license would be accepted. Plaintiffs' § 1983 complaint alleged that this policy was unconstitutional in that it violated the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Plaintiffs moved for a TRO and/or a preliminary injunction the day after suit was filed.
Following a hearing on the plaintiffs' motions, the District Court (Judge A. Richard Caputo) granted the plaintiffs' request for a TRO and enjoined the County from requiring the non-U.S. citizen plaintiff to produce a visa or other proof of his lawful presence in the United States as a condition of obtaining a marriage license. Judge Caputo reasoned that both the U.S. citizen plaintiff and the Mexican citizen possessed the same fundamental right to marry, that defendants' policy did not appear to be closely tailored enough to effectuate a sufficiently important state interest, and therefore, the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable probability that the County policy violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After several months of negotiations, the court signed a consent order on February 11, 2008. The parties agreed that the defendant would no longer require any applicant to produce a visa or other proof of lawful presence in the United States and would post that policy publicly.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which the court granted on August 27, 2008.
Elizabeth Daligga - 07/17/2012
compress summary