This is a case brought by eight same-sex couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized by the State of Nevada. Represented by Lambda Legal and private counsel, they brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, suing the Governor and several clerks/recorders.

The Nevada Constitution prohibited official recognition of same-sex marriages. See Nev. Const. art. I, § 21 ("Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in [Nevada]."). There was, however, a law offering "domestic partnership" status to two persons of any gender. Under Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 122A, Nevada recognizes both out-of-state same-sex marriages and out-of-state same-sex marriage-like relationships as "domestic partnerships." A couple not having the status on the basis of an out-of-state partnership/marriage can enter into a Nevada domestic partnership after satisfying marriage-like eligibility requirements and filing with the Secretary of State a form declaring their decision "to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring." By statute, Nevada gives domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities as spouses, except, most notably, that it "do[es] not require a public or private employer in this State to provide health care benefits to or for the domestic partner of an officer or employee."

On November 26, 2012, Judge Robert Jones, of the District of Nevada, held the Nevada scheme constitutional. 911 F.Supp.2d 996. The Court first held that the Supreme Court's summary disposition in Baker v. Nelson was largely dispositive; in that case, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed an equal protection challenge to Minnesota's marriage laws for lack of a substantial federal question. In case the Court of Appeals disagreed with this approach, however, the District Court continued to address the issues on the merits. It found that the appropriate constitutional analysis was rational basis scrutiny, because the "homosexual-rights lobby" "has great political power." And applying rational basis review, the court held that Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage was rationally related to its legitimate goal of nurturing heterosexual marriage and families:

Should [marriage] be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state's imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences."

Accordingly, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim.

Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on December 4th, 2012. The 9th Circuit stayed the appeal while the DOMA and Perry cases were pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 10, 2014, the Nevada Attorney General withdrew the state's brief defending the state's same-sex marriage ban because of a recent 9th Circuit case, SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbot Laboratories, which established that laws making distinctions on sexual orientation faced heightened scrutiny. The state did not believe that the ban could survive this level of review.

The 9th Circuit heard oral arguments, on September 8, 2014, before Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Ronald M. Gould, and Marsha S. Berzon. On October 7, the 9th Circuit overturned the district court's decision and held that Nevada's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The next day, the Supreme Court (Justice Anthony Kennedy) initially stayed the 9th Circuit's decision. Later in the day, Justice Kennedy reversed himself and lifted the stay as it applied to the state of Nevada.

On October 9, 2014, the Nevada District Court (Judge James Mahan) granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction preventing the state from enforcing its same-sex marriage ban in light of the 9th Circuit's decision, and the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On October 13, 2014, appellee Coalition for the Protection of Marriage filed a petition for an en banc rehearing, and on January 9, 2015 the court issued an order denying rehearing. The case is now closed.

Katrina Fahey - 11/29/2012
Katrina Fahey - 11/10/2013
Andrew Junker - 12/09/2014


compress summary