From Lambda Legal
Washington (March 5, 2015) — The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it has scheduled argument for the marriage cases on Tuesday, April 28, at 10:00am. The cases the Court will hear include two Ohio cases litigated by Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Gerhardstein & Branch. Susan Sommer, Director of Constitutional Litigation at Lambda Legal, issued the following statement:
"We are poised to make our case to the Supreme Court and are ready for this next chapter in the history of the freedom to marry in this country. In less than two months we will be before the Court to argue that same-sex couples and their families can't wait any longer for justice.
"While the next two months will be a time of tremendous excitement and anticipation, they also are an opportunity to reflect on the amazing strides we have made in advancing the cause of equality for LGBT individuals and couples and people living with HIV over the past decades. The cases the Supreme Court will hear April 28 carry the flag for marriage equality, but let us not forget the literally dozens of cases in state and federal courts nationwide and the collective effort of Lambda Legal, NCLR, the ACLU, GLAD and other sister LGBT groups and private often pro-bono counsel that have paved the way and laid the groundwork for this moment.
"From the early stirrings in Hawai`i in 1993 to the critical victories in Massachusetts, California, Iowa, and New Jersey to the breathtaking triumphs of recent months, we all can take pride in what together we have accomplished and in the case we will put forth next month."
The two Ohio cases the Court will hear are Henry v. Hodges, where Lambda Legal joined Gerhardstein & Branch, and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the ACLU joined Gerhardstein & Branch. The other Sixth Circuit cases before the Court are: DeBoer v. Snyder, a Michigan case litigated by private counsel and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD); Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear, Kentucky cases litigated by private counsel and the ACLU; and Tanco v. Haslam, a Tennessee case litigated by private counsel and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).
The April 28 argument will be the next chapter in the history of the journey for same-sex couples and their families in the United States. It follows the avalanche of state court, U.S. district court and U.S. appellate court rulings striking down discriminatory state marriage bans since last summer's historic Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Windsor declaring the core provision of the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.
Just last week plaintiffs in the Ohio cases filed their opening brief to the high Court: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/henry_oh_20150227_petitioners-brief .
Information about Henry v. Hodges is available here: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes .
From a National Center for Lesbian Rights press release
( Washington, DC, March 5, 2015 )—The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument on April 28, 2015 in marriage equality cases from Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio.
By hearing the cases, the Court has an opportunity to bring an end to the serious harms caused by discriminatory marriage laws in the minority of states that continue to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry. The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June 2015.
The Tennessee plaintiff couples are Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty; Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura; and Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo. They are represented by Shannon Minter, Christopher F. Stoll, and David C. Codell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights ( NCLR ), Tennessee attorneys Abby Rubenfeld, Maureen Holland, and Regina Lambert, William Harbison and other attorneys from the law firm of Sherrard & Roe PLC, and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier and other attorneys from the law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP.
"We're hopeful the Court will recognize that our family is like other families in Tennessee," said Tanco, who has an 11-month-old daughter with Jesty. "Even though we were married when we moved to Tennessee, Tennessee doesn't see us as a family or give us any of the legal protections that other married couples have. We are grateful to have this chance to explain to the Court why this discrimination hurts us and our daughter."
Minter, who serves as NCLR legal director, said: "Currently, same-sex couples in many states face a constitutionally intolerable situation because their home states treat them as legal strangers. Every day, legally married same-sex couples are forced to give up the status and protections of marriage as the price of traveling or moving to a state that excludes them from marriage. No family should be stripped of legal recognition simply by crossing a state. We hope the Supreme Court will finally bring an end to the harms that same-sex couples and their children face when they are treated with such callous disregard for their equal dignity and security as families."
In a 2-1 decision on Nov. 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld marriage bans in Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio—creating a conflict with the four other federal appeals courts that have invalidated similar state marriage bans in recent months. The U.S. Supreme Court on October 6, 2014 declined to review federal appeals court decisions striking down marriage bans in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Since the Supreme Court denied review in those cases, same-sex couples can now marry in 37 states and the District of Columbia.
On Nov. 15, 2014, the Tennessee couples asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case, arguing: "Breaking with the otherwise uniform view of the courts of appeals, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit upheld Tennessee's Non-Recognition Laws. The court of appeals' holding not only denies recognition to petitioners' own marriages and families, but also establishes a checkerboard nation in which same-sex couples' marriages are dissolved and reestablished as they travel across the country. That is the antithesis of the stability that marriage is supposed to afford."
Learn more about the case at the link: www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/tanco_v_haslam/ .
