On October 15th, 2013, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state of Oregon. The plaintiffs, represented by both private and public counsel, asked the court to declare that Oregon laws banning same-sex marriages violate the United States Constitution, issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of laws banning same-sex marriage, and award the plaintiffs costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that their rights under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause have been violated by being denied the same access to marriage as different-sex couples. They further claim that the ban discriminates against gay and lesbian citizens of Oregon who wish to be married in their state of residence.

On January 22nd, 2014, this case was consolidated with Rummel v. Kitzhaber because of its similar circumstances. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on February 18th, 2014. On February 20, Oregon's Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, announced that the state would not defend its ban on same-sex marriage. The State filed an answer in the case telling the court that it agreed with the plaintiffs that "the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review." The state stated, however, that "In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs."

An anti-same-sex-marriage group, the National Organization for Marriage, then moved to intervene to defend the ban. The Court denied intervention on and struck down the same-sex marriage ban on May 19th, 2014. The court's opinion declared that Oregon's ban of same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause and the court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the ban. Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 2014 WL 2054264 (D. Oregon 2014).

The defendants declined to appeal and did not seek a stay of the injunction. However, the National Organization for Marriage appealed the denial of their intervention motion, and sought a stay of the injunction pending disposition of that appeal. That stay was denied, first by the district court on May 19, 2014, then by the Court of Appeals that same day, and then by the Supreme Court on June 4, 2014.

Megan Dolan - 06/25/2014


compress summary