Texas High Court Leaves Open 2015 Marriage Equality Ruling’s Meaning

Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

A 2014 campaign ad for Texas Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd. | JUSTICEJEFFBOYD.ORG

In a clear misreading of the US Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 — especially as elucidated just days ago by the high court in its Arkansas birth certificate ruling in Pavan v. Smith — the Texas Supreme Court, on June 30, unanimously refused to dismiss a lawsuit by two disgruntled taxpayers who argue that the city of Houston should not provide employee benefits for the same-sex spouses of its employees.

Instead, even while affirming the Texas Court of Appeals’ ruling that reversed a 2014 trial court preliminary injunction against paying those benefits, the Texas high court sent the case back to the trial court to consider whether Obergefell obligates Houston to provide equal benefits to it employees’ same-sex spouses.

The trial court was also directed to consider the taxpayers’ argument that the city should be required to “claw back” the value of benefits paid prior to the Obergefell decision, on the theory that Texas’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriages contracted out of state was valid until the marriage equality ruling was handed down.

Refusing to dismiss challenge to equal spousal benefits for public employees, unanimous bench stirs pot

In the Pavan v. Smith case, the Arkansas Supreme Court had ruled that the Obergefell decision did not require the state to treat same-sex spouses the same as different-sex spouses in listing a birth mother’s spouse as a parent on their child’s birth certificate. Reversing that ruling on the last day of its session, the US Supreme Court, in an unsigned “Per Curiam” opinion, said, “As we explained [in Obergefell], a State may not ‘exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.’ Indeed, in listing those terms and conditions — the ‘rights, benefits, and responsibi­lities’ to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access — we expressly identified ‘birth and death certificat­es.’ That was no accident…”

The Supreme Court, in that way, made clear that same-sex couples, under Obergefell, are entitled to the same rights and benefits of marriage as different-sex couples.

In listing some of the rights and benefits of marriage that same-sex couples had wrongly been denied, the Obergefell court also specifically mentioned health insurance, the employee benefit at issue in the Texas case. So, it is completely disingenuous for the Texas court to claim that Obergefell fails to deal with that question explicitly.

Yet, in Pidgeon v. Turner, Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd wrote for the Texas Supreme Court, “The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and — unlike the Fifth Circuit in DeLeon — it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitu­tional.”

DeLeon refers to the Texas marriage equality decision that was issued by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals a few days after the Obergefell decision, holding that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s action.

Instead of cutting through procedural complications to save everybody involved lots of wasted time and money through prolonged litigation, the Texas court has now repeated the Arkansas Supreme Court’s error by insisting that the Obergefell ruling does not clearly require “the same” rights, benefits, and responsibilities. Incredibly, in support of this point, the Texas court cited the Supreme Court’s decision on June 26 to grant review of a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Human Rights Commission, which concerns a totally different question: whether a baker has a First Amendment right to discriminate against a same-sex couple by refusing an order for a wedding cake in violation of that state’s anti-discrimination law.

In its June 2015 Obergefell ruling, the Supreme Court did not address the question of potential clashes between anti-discrimination laws and the free speech and free exercise of religion rights enjoyed by private individuals and organizations.

But the high court most emphatically did address the issue that governmental actors, like the city of Houston, bound by the 14th Amendment, must accord the same rights to all married couples, whether same-sex or different-sex. The court reiterated that point this past week in its Pavan birth certificate ruling.

The Texas case dates back to 2013, when Houston Mayor Annise Parker, an out lesbian, reacted to the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act by extending benefits to the same-sex spouses of Houston city employees who had gone out of state to get married.

At that time, Texas had both a state Defense of Marriage Act and a similar constitutional amendment, and Houston had a charter provision limiting municipal employee benefits to legal spouses and children of employees. Parker relied on an advisory opinion from Houston’s city attorney in concluding that after Windsor it was unconstitutional to refuse to recognize those out-of-state marriages.

Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, Houston taxpayers who identified themselves as devout Christians who did not want their tax money going to subsidize same-sex marriages, filed a lawsuit challenging Parker’s benefits extension in December 2013. They claimed, based on state and city law, that the benefits extension was “expending significant public funds on an illegal activity,” and persuaded a local trial judge to issue a preliminary injunction against continued payment of the benefits while the case was pending.

The city appealed.

The Texas Court of Appeals sat on the appeal while marriage equality litigation proceeded in federal courts in Texas and elsewhere. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell on June 26, 2015, the Fifth Circuit, affirming a federal district court ruling, held in DeLeon that the Texas laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

At that point, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction in the Pidgeon case and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to decide the case “consistent with DeLeon.”

When Pidgeon and Hicks sought to appeal this ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, they were initially turned down. Then the state’s top Republican elected officials — Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton — joined by other non-parties, filed papers with the Supreme Court urging it to change its mind. The court, whose members face the voters of Texas every six years, eventually agreed to do so.

In its June 30 ruling, the court buried itself in procedural complications. Based on its incorrect conclusion that Obergefell, as amplified by this week’s Pavan ruling, does not decide the case’s merits — and giving credence to the plaintiffs’ argument that Obergefell cannot be construed to have any retroactive effect because “the Supreme Court acknowledged that it was attributing a new meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment based on ‘new insights and societal understand­ings’” — the court opined that Pidgeon and Hicks should have an opportunity to “develop” their argument before the trial court.

This contention about retroactivity is not shared by other courts that have ruled on the question, including some that have retroactively applied Obergefell to find that cohabiting same-sex couples in states with common law marriage can be held to have been legally married prior to June 2015.

Indeed, the federal government even gave Windsor retroactive application, allowing same-sex couples to file for tax refunds for earlier years on the basis that the Internal Revenue Service’s refusal to recognize their state-law marriages under DOMA had been unconstitutional.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed with Pidgeon that the Texas Court of Appeals should not have directed the trial court to rule “consistent with DeLeon” because, technically, the state trial courts are not bound by constitutional rulings of the federal courts of appeals, only by US Supreme Court rulings on questions of federal law.

DeLeon could be a “persuasive” precedent, but not a “binding” precedent, Texas’ high court said.

Which merits a big “so what?”

After all, the real question in this case is whether Obergefell requires that married same-sex couples are entitled to the “same benefits” as different-sex couples from their municipal employer, and the answer to that could not be more clear, especially after Pavan. (It should be noted that Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion in Pavan repeats the same mistaken assertion — that Obergefell does not clearly require the “same” rights and benefits, which the court’s Per Curiam opinion responds to by quoting from Obergefell to the opposite effect — and is just as disingenuous as Justice Boyd’s decision for the Texas court.)

Now the case goes back to the trial court in Houston, where the outcome should be dictated by Obergefell and Pavan v. Smith and the court should dismiss this case. But, since this is taking place in Texas, where contempt for federal law is openly expressed by public officials, who knows how it will turn out?

Updated 5:17 pm, July 20, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reader feedback

Tung Le Thanh says:
Dịch vụ htus bể phốt Thái Bình
July 6, 2017, 2:14 am
National Two Wheeler says:
Very interesting news for justice seekers . I will look forward to the next update.
Aug. 25, 2017, 8:05 am
Goods Guard says:
Great news for justice seekers. I am waiting for the next update.
Oct. 4, 2017, Noon
Shawn Wilson says:
Thats really great news for this community. Nice sharing. Local Services Directory USA Free Business Directory Online Business Directory Australia
Oct. 13, 2017, 2:07 am
Bihar Board says:
Great news! thanks for sharing with us
Oct. 30, 2017, 10:36 am
Bihar Police says:
Great news! thanks for sharing with us. this very helpful to me vbspu time table
Nov. 11, 2017, 5:56 pm
RRB Information says:
Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs) offers Latest Railway Jobs 2017-2018 and Railway Recruitment 2018, The Railway Jobs Vacancy List published in this page updated every week. RRBs calls eligible Indian Citizens through Employment News for recruitment of various Technical, Non-Technical and Para Medical Posts in Group A, B, C and D Cadres Apply through Online Application / Offline Application Format
Nov. 25, 2017, 3:42 am
rrb notification says:
Nice Information Sir ,thank you for providing
Jan. 10, 2018, 4:33 am
puja says:
The information told by you is important.
Jan. 11, 2018, 4:04 am
RRB Recruitment says:
Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs) offers Latest Railway Jobs 2018, The Railway Jobs Vacancy List published in this page updated every week. RRBs calls eligible Indian Citizens through Employment News for recruitment of various Technical, Non-Technical and Para Medical Posts in Group A, B, C and D Cadres. Read more information here - RRB Ahmedabad
Jan. 20, 2018, 6:26 am
stanvenguru says:
Railway Jobs, invites application from men and women candidates, posts will be available for the candidates based on their qualifications. Railway Recruitment is always occupying the first place in every individual as their career option due to the nature of job, job security and remunerations.
Feb. 13, 2018, 4:25 am
Smeet says:
Here a great info for the all of us that SSC 10+2 Admit Card will be available online for UP Teacher Admit Card so if you have applied for TN police then you can download TNUSRB Hall Ticket online.
Feb. 14, 2018, 11:56 am
adhar status says:
Now Get you adhar card at UIDAI web portal
Feb. 19, 2018, 1:36 pm
rrbresult says:
Loved the post.
Feb. 22, 2018, 11:56 am
RRB says:
Nice post, thanks for sharing it
March 6, 2018, 6:28 am
vivek says:
nice article
March 7, 2018, 5:07 am
bike modifiers India says:
good post always write like this
March 7, 2018, 5:08 am
RRB Recruitment says:
Thanks for sharing this information.
March 10, 2018, 1:27 am
ITI Admission says:
Nice post.Thanks for sharing it.
March 14, 2018, 9:37 am
zainshaik222 says:
Great Article.Keep Up The Good Work. SSC CGL 2018-19 SSC GD 2018-19 IBPS RRB 2018-19 IBPS PO 2018-19
March 21, 2018, 5:11 pm
IBPS Exam Pattern says:
aWesome article
March 26, 2018, 3:23 pm
BSEB says:
March 26, 2018, 3:24 pm
RRB Kolkata Group D says:
Download Here Railway Computer Based Test Hall Ticket. You can download admit Card easily...
March 27, 2018, 10:18 am
RRB ALP Admit Card says:
This is the great information…
April 5, 2018, 5:57 am
RRB ALP Admit Card says:
Something really unique! Great job!
April 5, 2018, 5:57 am
adi says:
The Karnataka Examinations Authority has already announced to download the KCET hall ticket on the official site.
April 6, 2018, 3:22 am
vicky says:
आरआरबी ग्रुप डी एडमिट कार्ड 2018
April 7, 2018, 2:54 am
IBPS Recruitment says:
Good information you can download call letter from SBI Clerk Exam SBI Clerk Hall Ticket 2018
April 9, 2018, 10:02 am
Admit Card says:
Railway d group admit card dawnload
April 15, 2018, 7:04 am
Inter Result 2018 says:
A result (also called upshot) is the final consequence of a sequence of actions or events expressed qualitatively GSEB SSC Result 2018 or quantitatively. Possible results include advantage, disadvantage, gain, injury, loss, value and victory TN SSLC Result 2018. There may be a range of possible outcomes associated with an event depending on the point of view, historical distance or relevance Bihar Board 12th Result 2018. Reaching no result UP Board Result 2018 can mean that actions are inefficient, ineffective, meaningless or flawed. Students funking for the examinations in RBSE 10th Result 2018 November stating their personal details, subjects, and current educational status. Admit cards CBSE 12th Result 2018 for the prescribed examination hall are received at the notified cell or their respective. schools about 20–25 days prior to the commencement of the exam. The answer sheets are sent back to the board of education overseeing the certifications. The CBSE board has 10 regional offices for different states where the correction would occur. All foreign papers are sent to the office of the NCT(National Capital Territory) of India which is New Delhi. The papers are evaluated based on examples of ideal answers. A false roll no. is attached to the answer-sheet before evaluation. Once the answers have been evaluated, the identity numbers are matched to the actual roll no. (and identity) of the candidate.
April 28, 2018, 7:36 am
Valentines Day says:
The story article is so beautiful
April 28, 2018, 10:57 am
bharat rawat says:
Thank you for this informative article. Looking forward to see more like this
May 3, 2018, 1:44 am
sophia says:
The Great initiative has taken by the court . ssc JHT cut off KV Admission Form
May 10, 2018, 8:47 am
dailyrecruit says:
Yes Railway Jobs and defenceJobs would be one the main reason. Any way that's good to hear
May 12, 2018, 9:23 am
RRB Gorakhpur says:
Its really nice thanks for sharing....
May 16, 2018, 6:25 am
RPF says:
Railway Police bharti 2018
May 19, 2018, 9:52 pm

Comments closed.


Schneps Community News Group

Don’t miss out!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: