Filed Date: Dec. 26, 2013
Closed Date: 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 26, 2013, three city employees married to same-sex partners filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city of Houston. The plaintiffs, represented by an attorney from the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the Texas state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage (Texas Marriage Amendment and the Texas DOMA) were unconstitutional, and to enjoin the City of Houston from withdrawing or denying spousal benefits for same-sex spouses of city employees.
The case began after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. United States, when the City of Houston changed its benefits policy: same-sex spouses of city employees, who were legally married in another state, could now qualify for spousal benefits. Three city employees enrolled for these benefits. But on December 17, 2013, a state court, the District Court for Harris County, Texas, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the City to "cease and desist providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees that have married in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage." As a result, the City told the plaintiffs that the spousal benefits they currently had might be interrupted and terminated, while different-sex spouses would continue to receive their city benefits. In response, the plaintiffs brought this suit in federal district court arguing that the denial of benefits and the ban on same-sex marriage violated their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
On August 29, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Judge Sim Lake) granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stay, thereby preventing the City from terminating same-sex spousal benefits until the case was resolved, and staying the proceedings pending the final decision on the constitutionality of the Texas marriage ban in De Leon v. Perry.
While De Leon was being considered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court released its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, holding that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the liberty and equality guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. On July 1, 2015, the Fifth Circuit released its decision in De Leon, applying the Obergefell decision and finding the Texas marriage ban unconstitutional.
On July 6, 2015, Judge Sim Lake dismissed this case, finding Plaintiffs' claims moot in light of the recent decisions in both Obergefell and De Leon. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs and fees. This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Megan Dolan (8/5/2014)
David Hamstra (3/22/2015)
Michael Beech (3/24/2019)
De Leon v. Perry, Western District of Texas (2013)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4393627/parties/freeman-v-parker/
Aiyer, Nirja Sharma (Texas)
Amis, Brian Anthony (Texas)
Anastasiadis, Demetri (Texas)
Anderson, M Lucille (Texas)
Arenella, Susan J (Texas)
Lake, Simeon Timothy III (Texas)
Cambrice, Robert Louis (Texas)
DeLuca, Natalie Gianna (Texas)
Edwards, Thomas Haines (Texas)
Hacker, David Jonathan (Texas)
Harris, Patricia Alvarado (Texas)
Joseph, Dimple Abraham (Texas)
Norris-Sullivan, Deidra Ann (Texas)
Patterson, Peter Andrew (Texas)
Stevens, Elizabeth Lee (Texas)
Sullivan, Deidra Norris (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4393627/freeman-v-parker/
Last updated March 5, 2024, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 26, 2013
Closing Date: 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are several same-sex couples living in the city of Houston who wish to be granted spousal benefits.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Houston (Houston), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
LGBTQ+:
Discrimination-basis: