On September 1, 2004, two men who wished to marry each other in the state of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Orange. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to declare that the California Family Code and the Defense of Marriage Act were unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs brought suit after they were denied a marriage license by the County Clerk of Orange County on two separate occasions because they were both men. The plaintiffs claimed that by not issuing them an application for a marriage license pursuant to California Code the County had violated their rights under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs also challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On June 16, 2005, the Court (Judge Gary L. Taylor) issued a ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. 374 F.Supp.2d 861. First, the Court held that it was proper for the District Court to abstain from judgment on the constitutionality of state law here, as a set of consolidated cases was pending before California state court on this issue (In re Marriage Cases). Second, the Court held that Section 3 of DOMA (defining marriage as opposite-sex for Federal purposes) was constitutional and also denied plaintiffs standing to challenge Section 2 of DOMA (preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages authorized in other states).

On May 5, 20016, following an appeal by plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, denied the district court's finding that it was proper to abstain from deciding the constitutionality of state law. 447 F.3d 673. The Ninth Circuit also upheld Judge Taylor's determination that plaintiffs lacked standing regarding Section 2 of DOMA, the state-recognition provision. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court regarding Section 3 of DOMA, the definitional provision; the appeals court instead held that plaintiffs did not have a particularized injury, and therefore lacked constitutional standing to challenge this provision as well.

On August 29, 2008, the District Court (Judge David O. Carter) issued an order dismissing the case pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Order. The plaintiffs later brought a related suit against the United States in PB-CA-0035 : Smelt v. United States in 2008.

Megan Dolan - 10/09/2014
Eric Cole - 07/30/2015


compress summary