On September 26, 2013, a same-sex couple, married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's marriage law, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1704, to the extent that it barred recognition of same-sex marriages legally valid under the laws of other states. They also challenged Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, to the extent that the Pennsylvania statute purported to be authorized by this federal law.

Specifically, the plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief including a declaration that Pennsylvania's refusal to recognize marriages validly entered into under the laws of another sovereign state violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the fundamental right to travel of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Pennsylvania statute barring same-sex marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and that Section 2 of DOMA violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Finally, the plaintiffs sought an injunction directing Pennsylvania to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples validly entered into in states other than Pennsylvania.

On May 22, 2014, the Court ordered that the Plaintiffs show cause as to why their case should not be dismissed as moot, given that Whitewood v. Wolf held that the state law was unconstitutional. 2014 WL 2058105 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014) (PB-PA-0012 in this Clearinghouse). The Court then, on September 8, 2014, placed this matter in civil suspense pending an appeal to the United States Supreme Court in Whitewood v. Wolf.

The parties then voluntarily dismissed the case on October 22, 2014, in accordance with the Court's decision in Whitewood permanently enjoining the enforcement of the Pennsylvania same-sex marriage ban.

The Court denied the Philadelphia Metro Task Force's motion to intervene on November 29, 2014. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to deny the motion to intervene and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The case is now closed.

Carlyn Williams - 10/16/2013
Claire Lally - 04/05/2015


compress summary